The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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.
| Title |
<sup>11</sup>C‐PIB‐PET for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010386.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shuo Zhang, Nadja Smailagic, Chris Hyde, Anna H Noel‐Storr, Yemisi Takwoingi, Rupert McShane, Juan Feng |
| Abstract |
According to the latest revised National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (now known as the Alzheimer's Association) (NINCDS-ADRDA) diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease dementia, the confidence in diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease dementia is raised with the application of imaging biomarkers. These tests, added to core clinical criteria, might increase the sensitivity or specificity of a testing strategy. However, the accuracy of biomarkers in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated. A formal systematic evaluation of the sensitivity, specificity, and other properties of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with the (11)C-labelled Pittsburgh Compound-B ((11)C-PIB) ligand was performed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Argentina | 1 | 8% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 332 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 12% |
| Researcher | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 54 | 16% |
| Unknown | 99 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 79 | 23% |
| Psychology | 26 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 62 | 18% |
| Unknown | 120 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 May 2024.
All research outputs
#2,731,165
of 26,374,559 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,239
of 13,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,816
of 240,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,374,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 240,785 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 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.