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 |
Evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction using through-time radial GRAPPA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-014-0079-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gunhild Aandal, Vidya Nadig, Victoria Yeh, Prabhakar Rajiah, Trevor Jenkins, Abdus Sattar, Mark Griswold, Vikas Gulani, Robert C Gilkeson, Nicole Seiberlich |
| Abstract |
The determination of left ventricular ejection fraction using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) requires a steady cardiac rhythm for electrocardiogram (ECG) gating and multiple breathholds to minimize respiratory motion artifacts, which often leads to scan times of several minutes. The need for gating and breathholding can be eliminated by employing real-time CMR methods such as through-time radial GRAPPA. The aim of this study is to compare left ventricular cardiac functional parameters obtained using current gold-standard breathhold ECG-gated functional scans with non-gated free-breathing real-time imaging using radial GRAPPA, and to determine whether scan time or the occurrence of artifacts are reduced when using this real-time approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 40% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 31% |
| Researcher | 13 | 27% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 15 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 12% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
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 16 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,148,294
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#934
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,034
of 266,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 266,399 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.