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 |
Association between myocardial extracellular volume and strain analysis through cardiovascular magnetic resonance with histological myocardial fibrosis in patients awaiting heart transplantation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-018-0445-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yue Cui, Yukun Cao, Jing Song, Nianguo Dong, Xiangchuang Kong, Jing Wang, Yating Yuan, Xiaolei Zhu, Xu Yan, Andreas Greiser, Heshui Shi, Ping Han |
| Abstract |
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived extracellular volume (ECV) and tissue tracking strain analyses are proposed as non-invasive methods for quantifying myocardial fibrosis and deformation. This study sought (1) to histologically validate myocardial ECV against the collagen volume fraction (CVF) measured from tissue samples of patients undergoing heart transplantation and (2) to detect the correlations between myocardial systolic strain and the myocardial ECV and histological CVF in patients undergoing heart transplantation. A total of 12 dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and 10 ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients underwent T1 mapping with the Modified Look Locker Inversion recovery (MOLLI) sequence, T2 mapping and ECV. Myocardial systolic strain, including left ventricular global longitudinal (GLS), circumferential (GCS) and radial strain (GRS), were quantified using CMR cine images with tissue tracking analysis software. Tissue samples were collected from each of 16 segments of the explanted hearts and were stained with picrosirius red for histological CVF quantification. A strong relationship was observed between the global myocardial ECV and histological CVF in the DCM and ICM patients based on a per-patient analysis (r = 0.904 and r = 0.901, respectively, p < 0.001). In the linear mixed-effects regression analysis, ECV correlated well with the histological CVF in the DCM and ICM patients on a per-segment basis (β = 0.838 and β = 0.915, respectively, p < 0.001). In the multivariate linear regression analysis, histological CVF was the strongest independent determinant of ECV in the patients awaiting heart transplantation (standardised β = 0.860, p < 0.001). However, the T2 time, GLS, GCS and GRS showed no significant associations with ECV and CVF in the patients awaiting heart transplantation. ECV derived from CMR correlated well with histological CVF, indicating its potential as a non-invasive tool for the quantification of myocardial fibrosis. Additionally, impaired myocardial systolic strains were not associated with the ECV and CVF in the patients awaiting heart transplantation. |
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 | 2 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Russia | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 20% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 49% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,430,308
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#373
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,006
of 340,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#10
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 340,960 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 71% 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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.