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.
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 |
Altered Whole-Brain Structural Covariance of the Hippocampal Subfields in Subcortical Vascular Mild Cognitive Impairment and Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2018.00342 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xuetong Wang, Yang Yu, Weina Zhao, Qiongling Li, Xinwei Li, Shuyu Li, Changhao Yin, Ying Han |
| Abstract |
The hippocampus plays important roles in memory processing. However, the hippocampus is not a homogeneous structure, which consists of several subfields. The hippocampal subfields are differently affected by many neurodegenerative diseases, especially mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and subcortical vascular mild cognitive impairment (svMCI) are the two subtypes of MCI. aMCI is characterized by episodic memory loss, and svMCI is characterized by extensive white matter hyperintensities and multiple lacunar infarctions on magnetic resonance imaging. The primary cognitive impairment in svMCI is executive function, attention, and semantic memory. Some variations or disconnections within specific large-scale brain networks have been observed in aMCI and svMCI patients. The aim of this study was to investigate abnormalities in structural covariance networks (SCNs) between hippocampal subfields and the whole cerebral cortex in aMCI and svMCI patients, and whether these abnormalities are different between the two groups. Automated segmentation of hippocampal subfields was performed with FreeSurfer 5.3, and we selected five hippocampal subfields as the seeds of SCN analysis: CA1, CA2/3, CA4/dentate gyrus (DG), subiculum, and presubiculum. SCNs were constructed based on these hippocampal subfield seeds for each group. Significant correlations between hippocampal subfields, fusiform gyrus (FFG), and entorhinal cortex (ERC) in gray matter volume were found in each group. We also compared the differences in the strength of structural covariance between any two groups. In the aMCI group, compared to the normal controls (NC) group, we observed an increased association between the left CA1/CA4/DG/subiculum and the left temporal pole. Additionally, the hippocampal subfields (bilateral CA1, left CA2/3) significantly covaried with the orbitofrontal cortex in the svMCI group compared to the NC group. In the aMCI group compared to the svMCI group, we observed decreased association between hippocampal subfields and the right FFG, while we also observed an increased association between the bilateral subiculum/presubiculum and bilateral ERC. These findings provide new evidence that there is altered whole-brain structural covariance of the hippocampal subfields in svMCI and aMCI patients and provide insights to the pathological mechanisms of different MCI subtypes. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 49% |
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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,242,918
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#2,649
of 11,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,974
of 330,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#50
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 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 11,973 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 73% 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 330,076 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 307 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.