You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison between conventional and compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance for feature tracking global circumferential strain assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-021-00708-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomoyuki Kido, Kuniaki Hirai, Ryo Ogawa, Yuki Tanabe, Masashi Nakamura, Naoto Kawaguchi, Akira Kurata, Kouki Watanabe, Michaela Schmidt, Christoph Forman, Teruhito Mochizuki, Teruhito Kido |
| Abstract |
Feature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-based strain analysis. Recently, the compressed sensing (CS) technique has been applied to cine CMR, which has drastically reduced its acquisition time. However, the effects of CS imaging on FT strain analysis need to be carefully studied. This study aimed to investigate the use of CS cine CMR for FT strain analysis compared to conventional cine CMR. Sixty-five patients with different left ventricular (LV) pathologies underwent both retrospective conventional cine CMR and prospective CS cine CMR using a prototype sequence with the comparable temporal and spatial resolution at 3 T. Eight short-axis cine images covering the entire LV were obtained and used for LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis. Prospective CS cine CMR data over 1.5 heartbeats were acquired to capture the complete end-diastolic data between the first and second heartbeats. LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis were performed using a dedicated software (ci42; Circle Cardiovasacular Imaging, Calgary, Canada), and the global circumferential strain (GCS) and GCS rate were calculated from both cine CMR sequences. There were no significant differences in the GCS (- 17.1% [- 11.7, - 19.5] vs. - 16.1% [- 11.9, - 19.3; p = 0.508) and GCS rate (- 0.8 [- 0.6, - 1.0] vs. - 0.8 [- 0.7, - 1.0]; p = 0.587) obtained using conventional and CS cine CMR. The GCS obtained using both methods showed excellent agreement (y = 0.99x - 0.24; r = 0.95; p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference in the GCS between the conventional and CS cine CMR was 0.1% with limits of agreement between -2.8% and 3.0%. No significant differences were found in all LV volume assessment between both types of cine CMR. CS cine CMR could be used for GCS assessment by CMR-FT as well as conventional cine CMR. This finding further enhances the clinical utility of high-speed CS cine CMR imaging. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 60% |
| Engineering | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 February 2021.
All research outputs
#15,290,209
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#946
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,498
of 453,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#20
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 453,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.