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 |
Left atrial structure and functional quantitation using cardiovascular magnetic resonance and multimodality tissue tracking: validation and reproducibility assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0152-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mytra Zareian, Luisa Ciuffo, Mohammadali Habibi, Anders Opdahl, Elzbieta H. Chamera, Colin O. Wu, David A. Bluemke, João A. C. Lima, Bharath Ambale Venkatesh |
| Abstract |
Left atrium (LA) strain, volume and function are important markers of cardiovascular disease and myocardial impairment. We aimed to assess the accuracy of LA biplane volume and function measured by Multimodality Tissue Tracking (MTT). Also we assessed the inter-study reproducibility for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived LA volume and function parameters. Thirty subjects (mean age: 71.3 ± 8.7, 87 % male) including twenty subjects with cardiovascular events and ten healthy subjects, with CMR were evaluated in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). LA volumes were computed by the modified biplane method from 2- and 4-chamber projections and the Simpson's method from short-axis slices using both methods - manual and semi-automated delineation using MTT. LA total, active and passive ejection fractions were calculated. Pearson's correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare the measurements. In a second sample of 25 subjects (age: 65.7 ± 7.1, 72 % males) inter study, intra and inter reader reliability analysis was performed. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was evaluated. Left atrial MTT structural and functional parameters were not different from manual delineation, yet image analysis was only half as time consuming on average with MTT. Maximal volume MTT was not different between the Simpson's and Biplane methods, functional parameters, however were different. MTT allowed us to measure multiple LA parameters with good-excellent (ICC; 0.88- 0.98, p < 0.001) intra-and inter reader reproducibility and fair-good (ICC; 0.44-0.82, p < 0.05-0.001) inter study reproducibility. MTT derived LA biplane volume and function is accurate and reproducible and is suited for use in longitudinal studies. |
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% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 64% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,054,132
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#498
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,554
of 278,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#17
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 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 1,386 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 63% 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 278,274 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 38 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 52% of its contemporaries.