↓ Skip to main content

Native T1 mapping: inter-study, inter-observer and inter-center reproducibility in hemodialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
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
Native T1 mapping: inter-study, inter-observer and inter-center reproducibility in hemodialysis patients
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0337-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew P. M. Graham-Brown, Elaine Rutherford, E. Levelt, Daniel S. March, Darren R. Churchward, David J. Stensel, Christie McComb, Kenneth Mangion, Samantha Cockburn, Colin Berry, James C. Moon, Patrick B. Mark, James O. Burton, Gerry P. McCann

Abstract

Native T1 mapping is a cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technique that associates with markers of fibrosis and strain in hemodialysis patients. The reproducibility of T1 mapping in hemodialysis patients, prone to changes in fluid status, is unknown. Accurate quantification of myocardial fibrosis in this population has prognostic potential. Using 3 Tesla CMR, we report the results of 1) the inter-study, inter-observer and intra-observer reproducibility of native T1 mapping in 10 hemodialysis patients; 2) inter-study reproducibility of left ventricular (LV) structure and function in 10 hemodialysis patients; 3) the agreement of native T1 map and native T1 phantom analyses between two centres in 20 hemodialysis patients; 4) the effect of changes in markers of fluid status on native T1 values in 10 hemodialysis patients. Inter-study, inter-observer and intra-observer variability of native T1 mapping were excellent with co-efficients of variation (CoV) of 0.7, 0.3 and 0.4% respectively. Inter-study CoV for LV structure and function were: LV mass = 1%; ejection fraction = 1.1%; LV end-diastolic volume = 5.2%; LV end-systolic volume = 5.6%. Inter-centre variability of analysis techniques were excellent with CoV for basal and mid-native T1 slices between 0.8-1.2%. Phantom analyses showed comparable native T1 times between centres, despite different scanners and acquisition sequences (centre 1: 1192.7 ± 7.5 ms, centre 2: 1205.5 ± 5 ms). For the 10 patients who underwent inter-study testing, change in body weight (Δweight) between scans correlated with change in LV end-diastolic volume (ΔLVEDV) (r = 0.682;P = 0.03) representing altered fluid status between scans. There were no correlations between change in native T1 between scans (ΔT1) and ΔLVEDV or Δweight (P > 0.6). Linear regression confirmed ΔT1 was unaffected by ΔLVEDV or Δweight (P > 0.59). Myocardial native T1 is reproducible in HD patients and unaffected by changes in fluid status at the levels we observed. Native T1 mapping is a potential imaging biomarker for myocardial fibrosis in patients with end-stage renal disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Other 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 19 25%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 20 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 12 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,001,158
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#153
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,393
of 325,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#9
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 325,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 72% of its contemporaries.