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 |
Reproducibility of native myocardial T1 mapping in the assessment of Fabry disease and its role in early detection of cardiac involvement by cardiovascular magnetic resonance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-014-0099-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Silvia Pica, Daniel M Sado, Viviana Maestrini, Marianna Fontana, Steven K White, Thomas Treibel, Gabriella Captur, Sarah Anderson, Stefan K Piechnik, Matthew D Robson, Robin H Lachmann, Elaine Murphy, Atul Mehta, Derralyn Hughes, Peter Kellman, Perry M Elliott, Anna S Herrey, James C Moon |
| Abstract |
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived native myocardial T1 is decreased in patients with Fabry disease even before left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) occurs and may be the first non-invasive measure of myocyte sphingolipid storage. The relationship of native T1 lowering prior to hypertrophy and other candidate early phenotype markers are unknown. Furthermore, the reproducibility of T1 mapping has never been assessed in Fabry disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 3 | 30% |
| Italy | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 159 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 13% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 32 | 20% |
| Unknown | 33 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 57% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 45 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,409,565
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#365
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,545
of 369,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 369,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 68% of its contemporaries.