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 |
Voxel-wise quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: effect of variations in methodology and validation with positron emission tomography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1532-429x-16-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher A Miller, Josephine H Naish, Mark P Ainslie, Christine Tonge, Deborah Tout, Parthiban Arumugam, Anita Banerji, Robin M Egdell, David Clark, Peter Weale, Christopher D Steadman, Gerry P McCann, Simon G Ray, Geoffrey JM Parker, Matthias Schmitt |
| Abstract |
Quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow (MBF) from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion images appears to offer advantages over qualitative assessment. Currently however, clinical translation is lacking, at least in part due to considerable disparity in quantification methodology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of common methodological differences in CMR voxel-wise measurement of MBF, using position emission tomography (PET) as external validation. |
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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 54 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 29% |
| Researcher | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 41% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 13% |
| Engineering | 7 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
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 12 September 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
#283,466
of 322,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#25
of 32 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 322,817 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 32 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.