↓ Skip to main content

Endogenous assessment of chronic myocardial infarction with T1ρ-mapping in patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
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.
Title
Endogenous assessment of chronic myocardial infarction with T1ρ-mapping in patients
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12968-014-0104-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joep WM van Oorschot, Hamza El Aidi, Sanne J Jansen of Lorkeers, Johannes MIH Gho, Martijn Froeling, Fredy Visser, Steven AJ Chamuleau, Pieter A Doevendans, Peter R Luijten, Tim Leiner, Jaco JM Zwanenburg

Abstract

Detection of cardiac fibrosis based on endogenous magnetic resonance (MR) characteristics of the myocardium would yield a measurement that can provide quantitative information, is independent of contrast agent concentration, renal function and timing. In ex vivo myocardial infarction (MI) tissue, it has been shown that a significantly higher T1ρ is found in the MI region, and studies in animal models of chronic MI showed the first in vivo evidence for the ability to detect myocardial fibrosis with native T1ρ-mapping. In this study we aimed to translate and validate T1ρ-mapping for endogenous detection of chronic MI in patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 9 14%
Other 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Physics and Astronomy 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Engineering 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 18 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,368,851
of 25,564,614 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#564
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,740
of 361,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#10
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,564,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 361,075 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.