↓ Skip to main content

Improved co-registration of ex-vivo and in-vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance images using heart-specific flexible 3D printed acrylic scaffold combined with non-rigid registration

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Improved co-registration of ex-vivo and in-vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance images using heart-specific flexible 3D printed acrylic scaffold combined with non-rigid registration
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12968-019-0574-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Whitaker, Radhouene Neji, Nicholas Byrne, Esther Puyol-Antón, Rahul K. Mukherjee, Steven E. Williams, Henry Chubb, Louisa O’Neill, Orod Razeghi, Adam Connolly, Kawal Rhode, Steven Niederer, Andrew King, Cory Tschabrunn, Elad Anter, Reza Nezafat, Martin J. Bishop, Mark O’Neill, Reza Razavi, Sébastien Roujol

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Engineering 8 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,904,976
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#617
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,618
of 367,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 367,005 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.