↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Relationship between apathy and tumor location, size, and brain edema in patients with intracranial meningioma

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Relationship between apathy and tumor location, size, and brain edema in patients with intracranial meningioma
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s85288
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yihua Peng, Chunhong Shao, Ye Gong, Xuehai Wu, Weijun Tang, Shenxun Shi

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between apathy and tumor location, size, and brain edema in patients with intracranial meningioma. We enrolled 65 consecutive patients with meningioma and 31 normal controls matched for age, gender, and education. The patients were divided into frontal or non-frontal (NF) meningioma groups based on magnetic resonance imaging; the frontal group was then subdivided to dorsolateral frontal (DLF), medial frontal (MF), and ventral frontal (VF) groups. Tumor size and brain edema were also recorded. Apathy was assessed by the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). Assessments were carried out 1 week before and 3 months after surgery, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictive effect of tumor size, location, and brain edema on apathy. Analysis of variance and chi-square analysis were applied to compare apathy scores and apathy rates among the frontal, NF, and normal control groups, and all subgroups within the frontal group. Compared with the NF and control groups, the mean AES score was much higher in the frontal group (34.0±8.3 versus 28.63±6.0, P=0.008, and 26.8±4.2, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that AES scores in the MF group (42.1±6.6) and VF group (34.7±8.0) were higher than in the DLF group (28.5±4.36), NF group, and control group (P<0.05). The apathy rate was 63.6% in the MF group and 25% in the VF group, and significantly higher than in the DLF (5.6%), NF (5.3%), and control (0%) groups (P<0.001). A moderate correlation was found between AES score and mean diameter of the meningioma in all patient groups. Further analysis demonstrated that the correlation existed in the DLF (r=0.52, P=0.032), MF (r=0.84, P<0.001), and VF (r=0.64, P=0.008) groups, but not in the NF group (r=0.19, P=0.448). The AES score was much higher in patients with brain edema than in those without brain edema (34.73±8.28 versus 28.77±4.20, t=3.545, P=0.001). In subgroups within frontal meningioma patients, the statistical significance above only existed in the MF group (43.50±5.26 versus 25.67±6.03, P=0.001). Also, we examined the effect of related factors, such as age, sex, education, tumor size, tumor location and edema on the occurrence of apathy. The binary logistic regression analysis showed that MF [P=0.023, Exp(B) =145.6] and size [P=0.012, Exp(B) =1.20] got into the regression equation. Thirty-two patients underwent follow-up post-surgery. A significant reduction in AES was found in the MF group (AES1 - AES2 =6.86±6.82, t=2.68, P=0.04), but not in any of the other groups. Apathy occurs frequently in patients with frontal meningioma, and is more severe, especially in the MF region. Apathy is probably correlated with tumor location and size. Brain edema might increase the severity of apathy.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 8 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Psychology 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,583
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,210
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#50
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,132 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.