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 |
The effects of extracellular contrast agent (Gadobutrol) on the precision and reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0249-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel L. R. Kuetting, Darius Dabir, Rami Homsi, Alois M. Sprinkart, Julian Luetkens, Hans H. Schild, Daniel K. Thomas |
| Abstract |
Today feature tracking (FT) is considered to be a robust assessment tool in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for strain assessment. The FT algorithm is dependent on a high contrast between blood pool and myocardium. Extracellular contrast agents decrease blood-myocardial contrast in SSFP images and thus might affect FT results. However, in a routine CMR scan, SSFP-cine images including short axis views are partly acquired after contrast agent injection. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of extracellular contrast agent (Gadobutrol) (CA) on the precision and reproducibility of the feature tracking algorithm. A total of 40 patient volunteers (mean age 51.2 ± 19 years; mean LVEF 61 ± 9 %) were scanned in supine position on a clinical 1.5 T MR scanner (Philips Ingenia). SSFP-cine images in midventricular short axis view (SA) as well as horizontal long axis view (HLA) were acquired before and 10-15 min after injection of a double dose Gadobutrol. FT derived systolic circumferential and longitudinal strain parameters were then calculated for pre- and post-contrast images. FT derived midventricular peak systolic circumferential strain (PSCS) (-24.8 ± 6.4 % vs. -20.4 ± 6.3 %), apical PSCS (-28.67 ± 6.5 % vs. -24.06 ± 8.5 %), basal PSCS (-24.42 % ± 6.5 vs. -20.68 ± 7.1 %), peak systolic longitudinal strain (-19.57 ± 3.3 % vs. -17.24 ± 4.1 %), midventricular epicardial PSCS (-9.84 ± 3.4 % vs. -8.13 ± 3.4 %) , midventricular PSCS-rate (-1.52 ± 0.4 vs. -1.28 ± 0.5) and peak diastolic circumferential strain rate (1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.05 ± 0.5) were significantly reduced after CA application. Post CA strain assessment showed higher intra- and interobserver variability. Pre-CA: intraobserver: mean 0.21, Limits of agreement (LoA) -2.8 and 3.2; interobserver: mean 0.64, LoA -2.8 and 4.1. Post-CA: intraobserver: mean -0.11, LoA -5.1 to 4.9; interobserver: mean 4.93 LoA 2.4 to 12.2. The FT algorithm is dependent on a high contrast between blood and myocardium. Post CA strain results are significantly lower and less reproducible than pre-CA strain results. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 40% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 39% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,490,103
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#449
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,920
of 349,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th 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 67% 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 349,140 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 25 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.