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 |
Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Avan Suinesiaputra, David A. Bluemke, Brett R. Cowan, Matthias G. Friedrich, Christopher M. Kramer, Raymond Kwong, Sven Plein, Jeanette Schulz-Menger, Jos J. M. Westenberg, Alistair A. Young, Eike Nagel |
| Abstract |
High reproducibility of LV mass and volume measurement from cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown within single centers. However, the extent to which contours may vary from center to center, due to different training protocols, is unknown. We aimed to quantify sources of variation between many centers, and provide a multi-center consensus ground truth dataset for benchmarking automated processing tools and facilitating training for new readers in CMR analysis. Seven independent expert readers, representing seven experienced CMR core laboratories, analyzed fifteen cine CMR data sets in accordance with their standard operating protocols and SCMR guidelines. Consensus contours were generated for each image according to a statistical optimization scheme that maximized contour placement agreement between readers. Reader-consensus agreement was better than inter-reader agreement (end-diastolic volume 14.7 ml vs 15.2-28.4 ml; end-systolic volume 13.2 ml vs 14.0-21.5 ml; LV mass 17.5 g vs 20.2-34.5 g; ejection fraction 4.2 % vs 4.6-7.5 %). Compared with consensus contours, readers were very consistent (small variability across cases within each reader), but bias varied between readers due to differences in contouring protocols at each center. Although larger contour differences were found at the apex and base, the main effect on volume was due to small but consistent differences in the position of the contours in all regions of the LV. A multi-center consensus dataset was established for the purposes of benchmarking and training. Achieving consensus on contour drawing protocol between centers before analysis, or bias correction after analysis, is required when collating multi-center results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 169 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 47 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 17% |
| Unknown | 29 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 46% |
| Engineering | 20 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Unknown | 42 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,333,408
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#265
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,788
of 275,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 275,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.