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 |
Infarct quantification with cardiovascular magnetic resonance using "standard deviation from remote" is unreliable: validation in multi-centre multi-vendor data
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2022
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12968-022-00888-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Einar Heiberg, Henrik Engblom, Marcus Carlsson, David Erlinge, Dan Atar, Anthony H. Aletras, Håkan Arheden |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 1 | 20% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 20% |
United States | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unspecified | 6 | 26% |
Researcher | 3 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
Other | 2 | 9% |
Professor | 1 | 4% |
Other | 4 | 17% |
Unknown | 5 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unspecified | 6 | 26% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
Engineering | 2 | 9% |
Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
Other | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 6 | 26% |
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 22 November 2022.
All research outputs
#14,737,451
of 25,597,324 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#894
of 1,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,203
of 442,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,597,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. 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 442,182 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 70% of its contemporaries.