| 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, August 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. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
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
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#1,006
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,270
of 179,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 179,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.