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 |
In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2019
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12968-019-0538-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mark B. M. Hofman, Manouk J. A. Rodenburg, Karin Markenroth Bloch, Beat Werner, Jos J. M. Westenberg, Emanuela R. Valsangiacomo Buechel, Robin Nijveldt, Onno A. Spruijt, Philip J. Kilner, Albert C. van Rossum, Peter D. Gatehouse |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 20% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
Researcher | 2 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
Other | 3 | 15% |
Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
Engineering | 4 | 20% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 7 | 35% |
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 20 July 2019.
All research outputs
#15,617,434
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#976
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,210
of 365,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 365,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.