↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Basis of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Genetic Basis of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00348
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard D. Bagnall, Douglas E. Crompton, Christopher Semsarian

Abstract

People with epilepsy are at heightened risk of sudden death compared to the general population. The leading cause of epilepsy-related premature mortality is sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Postmortem investigation of people with SUDEP, including histological and toxicological analysis, does not reveal a cause of death, and the mechanisms of SUDEP remain largely unresolved. In this review we present the possible mechanisms underlying SUDEP, including respiratory dysfunction, cardiac arrhythmia and postictal generalized electroencephlogram suppression. Emerging studies in humans and animal models suggest there may be an underlying genetic basis to SUDEP in some cases. We will highlight a mounting body of evidence for the involvement of genetic risk factors in SUDEP, with a particular focus on the role of cardiac arrhythmia genes in SUDEP.

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 profiles of 28 X users 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,872,976
of 26,589,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#733
of 15,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,066
of 330,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#21
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,589,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 330,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.