↓ Skip to main content

The Network Model of Depression as a Basis for New Therapeutic Strategies for Treating Major Depressive Disorder in Parkinson’s Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
The Network Model of Depression as a Basis for New Therapeutic Strategies for Treating Major Depressive Disorder in Parkinson’s Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin D’Ostilio, Gaëtan Garraux

Abstract

The high prevalence of major depressive disorder in people with Parkinson's disease (PD), its negative impact on health-related quality of life and the low response rate to conventional pharmacological therapies call to seek innovative treatments. Here, we review the new approaches for treating major depressive disorder in patients with PD within the framework of the network model of depression. According to this model, major depressive disorder reflects maladaptive neuronal plasticity. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) using high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the prefrontal cortex has been proposed as a feasible and effective strategy with minimal risk. The neurobiological basis of its therapeutic effect may involve neuroplastic modifications in limbic and cognitive networks. However, the way this networks reorganize might be strongly influenced by the environment. To address this issue, we propose a combined strategy that includes NIBS together with cognitive and behavioral interventions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 121 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 43 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 17%
Neuroscience 17 14%
Psychology 14 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 42 34%
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 09 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,365,885
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,273
of 7,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,519
of 298,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#148
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 298,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.