↓ Skip to main content

A medical device-grade T1 and ECV phantom for global T1 mapping quality assurance—the T1 Mapping and ECV Standardization in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (T1MES) program

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
A medical device-grade T1 and ECV phantom for global T1 mapping quality assurance—the T1 Mapping and ECV Standardization in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (T1MES) program
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0280-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriella Captur, Peter Gatehouse, Kathryn E. Keenan, Friso G. Heslinga, Ruediger Bruehl, Marcel Prothmann, Martin J. Graves, Richard J. Eames, Camilla Torlasco, Giulia Benedetti, Jacqueline Donovan, Bernd Ittermann, Redha Boubertakh, Andrew Bathgate, Celine Royet, Wenjie Pang, Reza Nezafat, Michael Salerno, Peter Kellman, James C. Moon

Abstract

T1 mapping and extracellular volume (ECV) have the potential to guide patient care and serve as surrogate end-points in clinical trials, but measurements differ between cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanners and pulse sequences. To help deliver T1 mapping to global clinical care, we developed a phantom-based quality assurance (QA) system for verification of measurement stability over time at individual sites, with further aims of generalization of results across sites, vendor systems, software versions and imaging sequences. We thus created T1MES: The T1 Mapping and ECV Standardization Program. A design collaboration consisting of a specialist MRI small-medium enterprise, clinicians, physicists and national metrology institutes was formed. A phantom was designed covering clinically relevant ranges of T1 and T2 in blood and myocardium, pre and post-contrast, for 1.5 T and 3 T. Reproducible mass manufacture was established. The device received regulatory clearance by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Conformité Européene (CE) marking. The T1MES phantom is an agarose gel-based phantom using nickel chloride as the paramagnetic relaxation modifier. It was reproducibly specified and mass-produced with a rigorously repeatable process. Each phantom contains nine differently-doped agarose gel tubes embedded in a gel/beads matrix. Phantoms were free of air bubbles and susceptibility artifacts at both field strengths and T1 maps were free from off-resonance artifacts. The incorporation of high-density polyethylene beads in the main gel fill was effective at flattening the B 1 field. T1 and T2 values measured in T1MES showed coefficients of variation of 1 % or less between repeat scans indicating good short-term reproducibility. Temperature dependency experiments confirmed that over the range 15-30 °C the short-T1 tubes were more stable with temperature than the long-T1 tubes. A batch of 69 phantoms was mass-produced with random sampling of ten of these showing coefficients of variations for T1 of 0.64 ± 0.45 % and 0.49 ± 0.34 % at 1.5 T and 3 T respectively. The T1MES program has developed a T1 mapping phantom to CE/FDA manufacturing standards. An initial 69 phantoms with a multi-vendor user manual are now being scanned fortnightly in centers worldwide. Future results will explore T1 mapping sequences, platform performance, stability and the potential for standardization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 20%
Researcher 25 18%
Student > Master 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 26%
Engineering 20 15%
Physics and Astronomy 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 46 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,375,780
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#419
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,753
of 329,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 329,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.