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 |
Feasibility of asymmetric stretch assessment in the ascending aortic wall with DENSE cardiovascular magnetic resonance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1532-429x-16-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henrik Haraldsson, Michael Hope, Gabriel Acevedo-Bolton, Elaine Tseng, Xiaodong Zhong, Frederick H Epstein, Liang Ge, David Saloner |
| Abstract |
Vessel diameter is the principal imaging parameter assessed clinically for aortic disease, but adverse events can occur at normal diameters. Aortic stiffness has been studied as an additional imaging-based risk factor, and has been shown to be an independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and all-cause mortality. Reports suggest that some aortic pathology is asymmetric around the vessel circumference, a feature which would not be identified with current imaging approaches. We propose that this asymmetry may be revealed using Displacement Encoding with Stimulated Echoes (DENSE). The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of assessing asymmetric stretch in healthy and diseased ascending aortas using DENSE. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 39% |
| Engineering | 8 | 26% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 January 2014.
All research outputs
#23,084,818
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,293
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,051
of 320,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#22
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 320,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.