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 |
Optimized saturation recovery protocols for T1-mapping in the heart: influence of sampling strategies on precision
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-014-0055-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Kellman, Hui Xue, Kelvin Chow, Bruce S Spottiswoode, Andrew E Arai, Richard B Thompson |
| Abstract |
T1-mapping has the potential to detect and quantify diffuse processes such as interstitial fibrosis. Detection of disease at an early stage by measurement of subtle changes requires a high degree of reproducibility. Initial implementation of saturation recovery (SR) T1-mapping employed 3-parameter fitting which was highly accurate but was quite sensitive to noise; 2-parameter fitting greatly reduced the sensitivity to noise at the expense of a small degree of systematic bias. A recently introduced implementation that uses a variable readout flip angle greatly reduces systematic errors in T1-measurement thereby making it feasible to use SR methods with 2-parameter fitting with improved accuracy and precision. SR T1 mapping techniques with multi-heartbeat recovery times have been proposed to better sample the T1 recovery curve, but have not been evaluated for 2-parameter fitting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 31% |
| Engineering | 16 | 23% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 6 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
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 08 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,982,712
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#988
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,212
of 250,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#28
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 250,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.