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 |
Population-based studies of myocardial hypertrophy: high resolution cardiovascular magnetic resonance atlases improve statistical power
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1532-429x-16-16 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio de Marvao, Timothy JW Dawes, Wenzhe Shi, Christopher Minas, Niall G Keenan, Tamara Diamond, Giuliana Durighel, Giovanni Montana, Daniel Rueckert, Stuart A Cook, Declan P O’Regan |
| Abstract |
Cardiac phenotypes, such as left ventricular (LV) mass, demonstrate high heritability although most genes associated with these complex traits remain unidentified. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have relied on conventional 2D cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) as the gold-standard for phenotyping. However this technique is insensitive to the regional variations in wall thickness which are often associated with left ventricular hypertrophy and require large cohorts to reach significance. Here we test whether automated cardiac phenotyping using high spatial resolution CMR atlases can achieve improved precision for mapping wall thickness in healthy populations and whether smaller sample sizes are required compared to conventional methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 29% |
| Researcher | 11 | 19% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,292,673
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,006
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,907
of 324,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#15
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 324,765 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 51% of its contemporaries.