The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How Many Types of Dystonia? Pathophysiological Considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2018.00012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angelo Quartarone, Diane Ruge |
| Abstract |
Dystonia can be seen in a number of different phenotypes that may arise from different etiologies. The pathophysiological substrate of dystonia is related to three lines of research. The first postulate a loss of inhibition which may account for the excess of movement and for the overflow phenomena. A second abnormality is sensory dysfunction which is related to the mild sensory complaints in patients with focal dystonias and may be responsible for some of the motor dysfunction. Finally, there are strong pieces of evidence from animal and human studies suggesting that alterations of synaptic plasticity characterized by a disruption of homeostatic plasticity, with a prevailing facilitation of synaptic potentiation may play a pivotal role in primary dystonia. These working hypotheses have been generalized in all form of dystonia. On the other hand, several pieces of evidence now suggest that the pathophysiology may be slightly different in the different types of dystonia. Therefore, in the present review, we would like to discuss the neural mechanisms underlying the different forms of dystonia to disentangle the different weight and role of environmental and predisposing factors. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 21% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Finland | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 21 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 35 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,555,481
of 25,204,049 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#2,689
of 14,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,397
of 336,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#34
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,204,049 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 336,421 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.