↓ Skip to main content

Diffusion–Perfusion Mismatch: An Opportunity for Improvement in Cortical Function

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diffusion–Perfusion Mismatch: An Opportunity for Improvement in Cortical Function
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2014.00280
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa Motta, Amanda Ramadan, Argye E. Hillis, Rebecca F. Gottesman, Richard Leigh

Abstract

There has been controversy over whether diffusion-perfusion mismatch provides a biomarker for the ischemic penumbra. In the context of clinical stroke trials, regions of the diffusion-perfusion mismatch that do not progress to infarct in the absence of reperfusion are considered to represent "benign oligemia." However, at least in some cases (particularly large vessel stenosis), some of this hypoperfused tissue may remain dysfunctional for a prolonged period without progressing to infarct and may recover function if eventually reperfused. We hypothesized that patients with persistent diffusion-perfusion mismatch using a hypoperfusion threshold of 4-5.9 s delay on time-to-peak (TTP) maps at least sometimes have persistent cognitive deficits relative to those who show some reperfusion of this hypoperfused tissue.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Neuroscience 6 25%
Psychology 3 13%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2015.
All research outputs
#18,389,490
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,698
of 11,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,766
of 353,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#63
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.