↓ Skip to main content

Motion compensated cine CMR of the fetal heart using radial undersampling and compressed sensing

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2017
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 (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Motion compensated cine CMR of the fetal heart using radial undersampling and compressed sensing
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0346-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher W. Roy, Mike Seed, John C. Kingdom, Christopher K. Macgowan

Abstract

To develop and evaluate a reconstruction framework for high resolution time-resolved CMR of the fetal heart in the presence of motion. Data were acquired using a golden angle radial trajectory in seven fetal subjects and reconstructed as real-time images to detect fetal movement. Data acquired during through-plane motion were discarded whereas in-plane motion was corrected. A fetal cardiac gating signal was extracted to sort the corrected data by cardiac phase, allowing reconstruction of cine images. The quality of motion corrected images and the effect of data undersampling were quantified using separate expressions for spatial blur and image error. Motion corrected reordered cine reconstructions (127 slices) showed improved image quality relative to both uncorrected cines and corresponding real-time images across a range of root-mean-squared (RMS) displacements (0.3-3.7 mm) and fetal heart rates (119-176 bpm). The relative spatial blur between cines with and without motion correction increased with in-plane RMS displacement leading to an effective decrease in the effective spatial resolution for images without motion correction. Image error between undersampled and reference images was less than 10% for reconstructions using 750 or more spokes, yielding a minimum acceptable scan time of approximately 4 s/slice during quiescent through plane motion. By rejecting data corrupted by through-plane motion, and correcting data corrupted by in-plane translation, the proposed reconstruction framework accounts for common sources of motion artifact (gross fetal movement, maternal respiration, fetal cardiac contraction) to produce high quality images of the fetal heart.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 29%
Engineering 14 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 04 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,783,479
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#219
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,093
of 323,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#13
of 29 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 85th 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 83% 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 323,724 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 55% of its contemporaries.