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 |
Fractal frontiers in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: towards clinical implementation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0179-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriella Captur, Audrey L. Karperien, Chunming Li, Filip Zemrak, Catalina Tobon-Gomez, Xuexin Gao, David A. Bluemke, Perry M. Elliott, Steffen E. Petersen, James C. Moon |
| Abstract |
Many of the structures and parameters that are detected, measured and reported in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) have at least some properties that are fractal, meaning complex and self-similar at different scales. To date however, there has been little use of fractal geometry in CMR; by comparison, many more applications of fractal analysis have been published in MR imaging of the brain.This review explains the fundamental principles of fractal geometry, places the fractal dimension into a meaningful context within the realms of Euclidean and topological space, and defines its role in digital image processing. It summarises the basic mathematics, highlights strengths and potential limitations of its application to biomedical imaging, shows key current examples and suggests a simple route for its successful clinical implementation by the CMR community.By simplifying some of the more abstract concepts of deterministic fractals, this review invites CMR scientists (clinicians, technologists, physicists) to experiment with fractal analysis as a means of developing the next generation of intelligent quantitative cardiac imaging tools. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 32% |
| Engineering | 7 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,351,772
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#418
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,909
of 279,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#10
of 25 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 75th 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 69% 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 279,725 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 60% of its contemporaries.