| Title |
Abnormal regional spontaneous neural activity in visual pathway in retinal detachment patients: a resting-state functional MRI study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s147645 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xin Huang, Dan Li, Hai-Jun Li, Yu-Lin Zhong, Shelby Freeberg, Jing Bao, Xian-Jun Zeng, Yi Shao |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to investigate changes of brain neural homogeneity in retinal detachment (RD) patients using the regional homogeneity (ReHo) method to understand their relationships with clinical features. A total of 30 patients with RD (16 men and 14 women), and 30 healthy controls (HCs) (16 men and 14 women) closely matched in age and sex were recruited. Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging scans were performed for all subjects. The ReHo method was used to investigate the brain regional neural homogeneity. Patients with RD were distinguished from HCs by receiver operating characteristic curve. The relationships between the mean ReHo signal values in many brain regions and clinical features in RD patients were calculated by Pearson correlation analysis. Compared with HCs, RD patients had significantly decreased ReHo values in the right occipital lobe, right superior temporal gyrus, bilateral cuneus and left middle frontal gyrus. Moreover, we found that the mean ReHo signal of the bilateral cuneus showed positive relationships with the duration of the RD (r=0.392, P=0.032). The RD patients showed brain neural homogeneity dysfunction in the visual pathway, which may underline the pathological mechanism of RD patients with acute vision loss. Besides, the ReHo values can reflect the progress of the RD disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 14% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 2 | 29% |
| Engineering | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,583
of 3,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,886
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#32
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.