↓ Skip to main content

Disparity between dorsal and ventral networks in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: evidence revealed by graph theoretical analysis based on cortical thickness from MRI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Disparity between dorsal and ventral networks in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: evidence revealed by graph theoretical analysis based on cortical thickness from MRI
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seung-Goo Kim, Wi Hoon Jung, Sung Nyun Kim, Joon Hwan Jang, Jun Soo Kwon

Abstract

As one of the most widely accepted neuroanatomical models on obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), it has been hypothesized that imbalance between an excitatory direct (ventral) pathway and an inhibitory indirect (dorsal) pathway in cortico-striato-thalamic circuit underlies the emergence of OCD. Here we examine the structural network in drug-free patients with OCD in terms of graph theoretical measures for the first time. We used a measure called efficiency which quantifies how a node transfers information efficiently. To construct brain networks, cortical thickness was automatically estimated using T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. We found that the network of the OCD patients was as efficient as that of healthy controls so that the both networks were in the small-world regime. More importantly, however, disparity between the dorsal and the ventral networks in the OCD patients was found in terms of graph theoretical measures, suggesting a positive evidence to the imbalance theory on the underlying pathophysiology of OCD.

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 2 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 12 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 19%
Psychology 10 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Engineering 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 7 12%
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 03 July 2013.
All research outputs
#17,689,573
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,695
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,175
of 280,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#727
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 280,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.