↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of left ventricular strains and torsion derived from feature tracking and DENSE CMR

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Comparison of left ventricular strains and torsion derived from feature tracking and DENSE CMR
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12968-018-0485-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory J. Wehner, Linyuan Jing, Christopher M. Haggerty, Jonathan D. Suever, Jing Chen, Sean M. Hamlet, Jared A. Feindt, W. Dimitri Mojsejenko, Mark A. Fogel, Brandon K. Fornwalt

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking is increasingly used to quantify cardiac mechanics from cine CMR imaging, although validation against reference standard techniques has been limited. Furthermore, studies have suggested that commonly-derived metrics, such as peak global strain (reported in 63% of feature tracking studies), can be quantified using contours from just two frames - end-diastole (ED) and end-systole (ES) - without requiring tracking software. We hypothesized that mechanics derived from feature tracking would not agree with those derived from a reference standard (displacement-encoding with stimulated echoes (DENSE) imaging), and that peak strain from feature tracking would agree with that derived using simple processing of only ED and ES contours. We retrospectively identified 88 participants with 186 pairs of DENSE and balanced steady state free precession (bSSFP) image slices acquired at the same locations across two institutions. Left ventricular (LV) strains, torsion, and dyssynchrony were quantified from both feature tracking (TomTec Imaging Systems, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging) and DENSE. Contour-based strains from bSSFP images were derived from ED and ES contours. Agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman analyses and coefficients of variation (CoV). All biases are reported in absolute percentage. Comparison results were similar for both vendor packages (TomTec and Circle), and thus only TomTec Imaging System data are reported in the abstract for simplicity. Compared to DENSE, mid-ventricular circumferential strain (Ecc) from feature tracking had acceptable agreement (bias: - 0.4%, p = 0.36, CoV: 11%). However, feature tracking significantly overestimated the magnitude of Ecc at the base (bias: - 4.0% absolute, p < 0.001, CoV: 18%) and apex (bias: - 2.4% absolute, p = 0.01, CoV: 15%), underestimated torsion (bias: - 1.4 deg/cm, p < 0.001, CoV: 41%), and overestimated dyssynchrony (bias: 26 ms, p < 0.001, CoV: 76%). Longitudinal strain (Ell) had borderline-acceptable agreement (bias: - 0.2%, p = 0.77, CoV: 19%). Contour-based strains had excellent agreement with feature tracking (biases: - 1.3-0.2%, CoVs: 3-7%). Compared to DENSE as a reference standard, feature tracking was inaccurate for quantification of apical and basal LV circumferential strains, longitudinal strain, torsion, and dyssynchrony. Feature tracking was only accurate for quantification of mid LV circumferential strain. Moreover, feature tracking is unnecessary for quantification of whole-slice strains (e.g. base, apex), since simplified processing of only ED and ES contours yields very similar results to those derived from feature tracking. Current feature tracking technology therefore has limited utility for quantification of cardiac mechanics.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 36%
Engineering 9 19%
Computer Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 February 2019.
All research outputs
#5,637,394
of 26,460,266 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#378
of 1,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,811
of 351,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,460,266 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,404 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 73% 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 351,502 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.