↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of diffusion tensor imaging by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and gadolinium enhanced 3D image intensity approaches to investigation of structural anisotropy in explanted rat hearts

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Comparison of diffusion tensor imaging by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and gadolinium enhanced 3D image intensity approaches to investigation of structural anisotropy in explanted rat hearts
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0129-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Bernus, Aleksandra Radjenovic, Mark L Trew, Ian J LeGrice, Gregory B Sands, Derek R Magee, Bruce H Smaill, Stephen H Gilbert

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can through the two methods 3D FLASH and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) give complementary information on the local orientations of cardiomyocytes and their laminar arrays. Eight explanted rat hearts were perfused with Gd-DTPA contrast agent and fixative and imaged in a 9.4T magnet by two types of acquisition: 3D fast low angle shot (FLASH) imaging, voxels 50 × 50 × 50 μm, and 3D spin echo DTI with monopolar diffusion gradients of 3.6 ms duration at 11.5 ms separation, voxels 200 × 200 × 200 μm. The sensitivity of each approach to imaging parameters was explored. The FLASH data showed laminar alignments of voxels with high signal, in keeping with the presumed predominance of contrast in the interstices between sheetlets. It was analysed, using structure-tensor (ST) analysis, to determine the most (v 1 (ST) ), intermediate (v 2 (ST) ) and least (v 3 (ST) ) extended orthogonal directions of signal continuity. The DTI data was analysed to determine the most (e 1 (DTI) ), intermediate (e 2 (DTI) ) and least (e 3 (DTI) ) orthogonal eigenvectors of extent of diffusion. The correspondence between the FLASH and DTI methods was measured and appraised. The most extended direction of FLASH signal (v 1 (ST) ) agreed well with that of diffusion (e 1 (DTI) ) throughout the left ventricle (representative discrepancy in the septum of 13.3 ± 6.7°: median ± absolute deviation) and both were in keeping with the expected local orientations of the long-axis of cardiomyocytes. However, the orientation of the least directions of FLASH signal continuity (v 3 (ST) ) and diffusion (e 3 (ST) ) showed greater discrepancies of up to 27.9 ± 17.4°. Both FLASH (v 3 (ST) ) and DTI (e 3 (DTI) ) where compared to directly measured laminar arrays in the FLASH images. For FLASH the discrepancy between the structure-tensor calculated v 3 (ST) and the directly measured FLASH laminar array normal was of 9 ± 7° for the lateral wall and 7 ± 9° for the septum (median ± inter quartile range), and for DTI the discrepancy between the calculated v 3 (DTI) and the directly measured FLASH laminar array normal was 22 ± 14° and 61 ± 53.4°. DTI was relatively insensitive to the number of diffusion directions and to time up to 72 hours post fixation, but was moderately affected by b-value (which was scaled by modifying diffusion gradient pulse strength with fixed gradient pulse separation). Optimal DTI parameters were b = 1000 mm/s(2) and 12 diffusion directions. FLASH acquisitions were relatively insensitive to the image processing parameters explored. We show that ST analysis of FLASH is a useful and accurate tool in the measurement of cardiac microstructure. While both FLASH and the DTI approaches appear promising for mapping of the alignments of myocytes throughout myocardium, marked discrepancies between the cross myocyte anisotropies deduced from each method call for consideration of their respective limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 33%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 21 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 22 29%
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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,216,962
of 26,109,760 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#512
of 1,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,861
of 280,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,109,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,390 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 62% 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 280,375 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.