↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative assessment of damage during MCET: a parametric study in a rodent model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
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.
Title
Quantitative assessment of damage during MCET: a parametric study in a rodent model
Published in
Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40349-015-0039-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yiying I. Zhu, Douglas L. Miller, Chunyan Dou, Xiaofang Lu, Oliver D. Kripfgans

Abstract

Myocardial cavitation-enabled therapy (MCET) has been proposed as a means to achieve minimally invasive myocardial reduction using ultrasound to produce scattered microlesions by cavitating contrast agent microbubbles. Rats were treated using burst mode focused ultrasound at 1.5 MHz center frequency and varying envelope and pressure amplitudes. Evans blue staining indicated lethal cardiomyocytic injury. A previously developed quantitative scheme, evaluating the histologic treatment results, provides an insightful analysis for MCET treatment parameters. Such include ultrasound exposure amplitude and pulse modulation, contrast agent dose, and infusion rate. The quantitative method overcomes the limitation of visual scoring and works for a large dynamic range of treatment impact. Macrolesions are generated as an accumulation of probability driven microlesion formations. Macrolesions grow radially with radii from 0.1 to 1.6 mm as the ultrasound exposure amplitude (peak negative) increases from 2 to 4 MPa. To shorten treatment time, a swept beam was investigated and found to generate an acceptable macrolesion volume of about 40 μL for a single beam position. Ultrasound parameters and administration of microbubbles directly influence lesion characteristics such as microlesion density and macrolesion dimension. For lesion generation planning, control of MCET is crucial, especially when targeting larger pre-clinical models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Professor 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 2 25%
Environmental Science 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,580,157
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound
#48
of 80 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,523
of 292,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 292,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.