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 |
Multi-contrast atherosclerosis characterization (MATCH) of carotid plaque with a single 5-min scan: technical development and clinical feasibility
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12968-014-0053-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Zhaoyang Fan, Wei Yu, Yibin Xie, Li Dong, Lixin Yang, Zhanhong Wang, Antonio Hernandez Conte, Xiaoming Bi, Jing An, Tianjing Zhang, Gerhard Laub, Prediman Krishan Shah, Zhaoqi Zhang, Debiao Li |
Abstract |
Multi-contrast weighted imaging is a commonly used cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocol for characterization of carotid plaque composition. However, this approach is limited in several aspects including low slice resolution, long scan time, image mis-registration, and complex image interpretation. In this work, a 3D CMR technique, named Multi-contrast Atherosclerosis Characterization (MATCH), was developed to mitigate the above limitations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 33% |
Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 48 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 26% |
Researcher | 10 | 20% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Other | 6 | 12% |
Unknown | 13 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 34% |
Engineering | 10 | 20% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
Other | 5 | 10% |
Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,482,385
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#860
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,183
of 240,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 240,367 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.