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 |
Comparison of different methods for the estimation of aortic pulse wave velocity from 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-019-0584-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sophia Houriez--Gombaud-Saintonge, Elie Mousseaux, Ioannis Bargiotas, Alain De Cesare, Thomas Dietenbeck, Kevin Bouaou, Alban Redheuil, Gilles Soulat, Alain Giron, Umit Gencer, Damian Craiem, Emmanuel Messas, Emilie Bollache, Yasmina Chenoune, Nadjia Kachenoura |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 33% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
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 19 December 2019.
All research outputs
#17,537,548
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,091
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#302,535
of 480,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 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 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 480,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.