↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Identification of atrophy of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, in particular the subcallosal area, as an effective auxiliary means of diagnosis for major depressive disorder

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Identification of atrophy of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, in particular the subcallosal area, as an effective auxiliary means of diagnosis for major depressive disorder
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s34093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akira Niida, Richi Niida, Hiroshi Matsuda, Takashi Inada, Makoto Motomura, Akihiko Uechi

Abstract

Despite being a very common psychiatric disorder, physicians often have difficulty making a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) because, without established diagnostic criteria, they have to depend on interviews with patients and observation to assess psychiatric symptoms. However, previous researchers have reported that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans identify morphological changes in the brains of patients with MDD, which inspired us to hypothesize that assessment of local changes in the brain using voxel-based morphometry would serve as an auxiliary diagnostic method for MDD. Therefore, we focused on the VSRAD(®) plus (voxel-based specific regional analysis system for Alzheimer's disease), a diagnostic support system for use in early Alzheimer's disease, which allowed us to identify regional atrophy in the brain easily based on images obtained from MRI scans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Japan 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Neuroscience 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 15%

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 08 November 2012.
All research outputs
#2,923,104
of 4,507,280 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#154
of 273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,172
of 81,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 273 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 81,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.