↓ Skip to main content

Continuous measurement of aortic dimensions in Turner syndrome: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Continuous measurement of aortic dimensions in Turner syndrome: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0336-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dhananjay Radhakrishnan Subramaniam, William A. Stoddard, Kristian H. Mortensen, Steffen Ringgaard, Christian Trolle, Claus H. Gravholt, Ephraim J. Gutmark, Goutham Mylavarapu, Philippe F. Backeljauw, Iris Gutmark-Little

Abstract

Severity of thoracic aortic disease in Turner syndrome (TS) patients is currently described through measures of aorta size and geometry at discrete locations. The objective of this study is to develop an improved measurement tool that quantifies changes in size and geometry over time, continuously along the length of the thoracic aorta. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scans for 15 TS patients [41 ± 9 years (mean age ± standard deviation (SD))] were acquired over a 10-year period and compared with ten healthy gender and age-matched controls. Three-dimensional aortic geometries were reconstructed, smoothed and clipped, which was followed by identification of centerlines and planes normal to the centerlines. Geometric variables, including maximum diameter and cross-sectional area, were evaluated continuously along the thoracic aorta. Distance maps were computed for TS and compared to the corresponding maps for controls, to highlight any asymmetry and dimensional differences between diseased and normal aortae. Furthermore, a registration scheme was proposed to estimate localized changes in aorta geometry between visits. The estimated maximum diameter from the continuous method was then compared with corresponding manual measurements at 7 discrete locations for each visit and for changes between visits. Manual measures at the seven positions and the corresponding continuous measurements of maximum diameter for all visits considered, correlated highly (R-value = 0.77, P < 0.01). There was good agreement between manual and continuous measurement methods for visit-to-visit changes in maximum diameter. The continuous method was less sensitive to inter-user variability [0.2 ± 2.3 mm (mean difference in diameters ± SD)] and choice of smoothing software [0.3 ± 1.3 mm]. Aortic diameters were larger in TS than controls in the ascending [TS: 13.4 ± 2.1 mm (mean distance ± SD), Controls: 12.6 ± 1 mm] and descending [TS: 10.2 ± 1.3 mm (mean distance ± SD), Controls: 9.5 ± 0.9 mm] thoracic aorta as observed from the distance maps. An automated methodology is presented that enables rapid and precise three-dimensional measurement of thoracic aortic geometry, which can serve as an improved tool to define disease severity and monitor disease progression. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier - NCT01678274 . Registered - 08.30.2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Engineering 7 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,406,430
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#676
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,238
of 325,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#32
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 7.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 325,815 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.