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 |
T1 at 1.5T and 3T compared with conventional T2* at 1.5T for cardiac siderosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0207-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammed H. Alam, Dominique Auger, Gillian C. Smith, Taigang He, Vassilis Vassiliou, A. John Baksi, Rick Wage, Peter Drivas, Yanqiu Feng, David N. Firmin, Dudley J. Pennell |
| Abstract |
Myocardial black blood (BB) T2* relaxometry at 1.5T provides robust, reproducible and calibrated non-invasive assessment of cardiac iron burden. In vitro data has shown that like T2*, novel native Modified Look-Locker Inversion recovery (MOLLI) T1 shortens with increasing tissue iron. The relative merits of T1 and T2* are largely unexplored. We compared the established 1.5T BB T2* technique against native T1 values at 1.5T and 3T in iron overload patients and in normal volunteers. A total of 73 subjects (42 male) were recruited, comprising 20 healthy volunteers (controls) and 53 patients (thalassemia major 22, sickle cell disease 9, hereditary hemochromatosis 9, other iron overload conditions 13). Single mid-ventricular short axis slices were acquired for BB T2* at 1.5T and MOLLI T1 quantification at 1.5T and 3T. In healthy volunteers, median T1 was 1014 ms (full range 939-1059 ms) at 1.5T and modestly increased to 1165ms (full range 1056-1224 ms) at 3T. All patients with significant cardiac iron overload (1.5T T2* values <20 ms) had T1 values <939 ms at 1.5T, and <1056 ms at 3T. Associations between T2* and T1 were found to be moderate with y =377 · x(0.282) at 1.5T (R(2) = 0.717), and y =406 · x(0.294) at 3T (R(2) = 0.715). Measures of reproducibility of T1 appeared superior to T2*. T1 mapping at 1.5T and at 3T can identify individuals with significant iron loading as defined by the current gold standard T2* at 1.5T. However, there is significant scatter between results which may reflect measurement error, but it is also possible that T1 interacts with T2*, or is differentially sensitive to aspects of iron chemistry or other biology. Hurdles to clinical implementation of T1 include the lack of calibration against human myocardial iron concentration, no demonstrated relation to cardiac outcomes, and variation in absolute T1 values between scanners, which makes inter-centre comparisons difficult. The relative merits of T1 at 3T versus T2* at 3T require further consideration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 35% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,015,637
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#916
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,663
of 395,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#28
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 395,044 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.