↓ Skip to main content

Emerging Approaches for Validating and Managing Multiple Sclerosis Relapse

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Emerging Approaches for Validating and Managing Multiple Sclerosis Relapse
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A. Mills, Ali Mirza, Yang Mao-Draayer

Abstract

The autoimmune disease multiple sclerosis (MS) is characterized by relapses in the majority of patients. A definitive clinical diagnosis of relapse in MS can be complicated by the presence of an infection or comorbid disorder. In this mini-review, we describe efforts to develop enhanced imaging techniques and biomarker detection as future tools for relapse validation. There is emerging evidence of roles for meningeal inflammation, sex hormones, comorbid metabolic or mood disorders, and a dysregulated immune profile in the manifestation and severity of relapse. Specific subsets of immune cells likely drive the pathophysiology of relapse, and identification of a patient's unique immunological signature of relapse may help guide future diagnosis and treatment. Finally, these studies highlight the diversity in terms of relapse presentation, immunological signature, and response in patients with MS, indicating that going forward the best approach to assessment and treatment of relapse will be multifactorial and highly personalized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 29%
Neuroscience 9 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Psychology 5 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 9 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,056,410
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,489
of 11,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,404
of 308,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#66
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 308,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.