↓ Skip to main content

Myocardial tagging by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: evolution of techniques–pulse sequences, analysis algorithms, and applications

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
227 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
323 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Myocardial tagging by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: evolution of techniques–pulse sequences, analysis algorithms, and applications
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2011
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-13-36
Pubmed ID
Authors

El-Sayed H Ibrahim

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) tagging has been established as an essential technique for measuring regional myocardial function. It allows quantification of local intramyocardial motion measures, e.g. strain and strain rate. The invention of CMR tagging came in the late eighties, where the technique allowed for the first time for visualizing transmural myocardial movement without having to implant physical markers. This new idea opened the door for a series of developments and improvements that continue up to the present time. Different tagging techniques are currently available that are more extensive, improved, and sophisticated than they were twenty years ago. Each of these techniques has different versions for improved resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), scan time, anatomical coverage, three-dimensional capability, and image quality. The tagging techniques covered in this article can be broadly divided into two main categories: 1) Basic techniques, which include magnetization saturation, spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM), delay alternating with nutations for tailored excitation (DANTE), and complementary SPAMM (CSPAMM); and 2) Advanced techniques, which include harmonic phase (HARP), displacement encoding with stimulated echoes (DENSE), and strain encoding (SENC). Although most of these techniques were developed by separate groups and evolved from different backgrounds, they are in fact closely related to each other, and they can be interpreted from more than one perspective. Some of these techniques even followed parallel paths of developments, as illustrated in the article. As each technique has its own advantages, some efforts have been made to combine different techniques together for improved image quality or composite information acquisition. In this review, different developments in pulse sequences and related image processing techniques are described along with the necessities that led to their invention, which makes this article easy to read and the covered techniques easy to follow. Major studies that applied CMR tagging for studying myocardial mechanics are also summarized. Finally, the current article includes a plethora of ideas and techniques with over 300 references that motivate the reader to think about the future of CMR tagging.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 305 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 23%
Researcher 53 16%
Student > Master 36 11%
Student > Bachelor 29 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 7%
Other 67 21%
Unknown 41 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 126 39%
Engineering 74 23%
Physics and Astronomy 17 5%
Computer Science 14 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 64 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 September 2012.
All research outputs
#17,477,995
of 25,639,676 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,091
of 1,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,027
of 130,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,639,676 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 130,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.