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 |
Cardiac T2 mapping: robustness and homogeneity of standardized in-line analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-020-00619-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Wiesmueller, Wolfgang Wuest, Rafael Heiss, Christoph Treutlein, Michael Uder, Matthias Stefan May |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 41% |
| Engineering | 6 | 15% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,080,699
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#526
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,500
of 430,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#14
of 27 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 72nd 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 61% 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 430,971 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.