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 |
Atherosclerosis T1-weighted characterization (CATCH): evaluation of the accuracy for identifying intraplaque hemorrhage with histological validation in carotid and coronary artery specimens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-018-0447-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wen Liu, Yibin Xie, Chuan Wang, Yanni Du, Christopher Nguyen, Zhenjia Wang, Zhaoyang Fan, Li Dong, Yi Liu, Xiaoming Bi, Jing An, Chengxiong Gu, Wei Yu, Debiao Li |
| Abstract |
Coronary high intensity plaques (CHIPs) detected using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) coronary atherosclerosis T1-weighted characterization with integrated anatomical reference (CATCH) have been shown to be positively associated with high-risk morphology observed on intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT). This study sought to validate whether CHIPs detected on CATCH indicate the presence of intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) through ex vivo imaging of carotid and coronary plaque specimens, with histopathology as the standard reference. Ten patients scheduled to undergo carotid endarterectomy underwent CMR with the conventional T1-weighted (T1w) sequence. Eleven carotid atherosclerotic plaques removed at carotid endarterectomy and six coronary artery endarterectomy specimens removed from patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were scanned ex vivo using both the conventional T1w sequence and CATCH. Both in vivo and ex vivo images were examined for the presence of IPH. The sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen Kappa (k) value of each scan were calculated using matched histological sections as the reference. k value between each scan in the discrimination of IPH was also computed. A total of 236 in vivo locations, 328 ex vivo and matching histology locations were included for the analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and k value were 76.7%, 95.3%, and 0.75 for in vivo T1w imaging, 77.2%, 97.4%, and 0.78 for ex vivo T1w imaging, and 95.0%, 92.1%, and 0.84 for ex vivo CATCH, respectively. Moderate agreement was reached between in vivo T1w imaging, ex vivo T1w imaging, and ex vivo CATCH for the detection of IPH: between in vivo T1w imaging and ex vivo CATCH (k = 0.68), between ex vivo T1w imaging and ex vivo CATCH (k = 0.74), between in vivo T1w imaging and ex vivo T1w imaging (k = 0.83). None of the coronary artery plaque locations showed IPH. This study demonstrated that carotid CHIPs detected by CATCH can be used to assess for IPH, a high-risk plaque feature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 31% |
| Engineering | 5 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,972,232
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#988
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,324
of 340,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 7.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 340,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.