↓ Skip to main content

Extracellular volume fraction mapping in the myocardium, part 1: evaluation of an automated method

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
344 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Extracellular volume fraction mapping in the myocardium, part 1: evaluation of an automated method
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-14-63
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Kellman, Joel R Wilson, Hui Xue, Martin Ugander, Andrew E Arai

Abstract

Disturbances in the myocardial extracellular volume fraction (ECV), such as diffuse or focal myocardial fibrosis or edema, are hallmarks of heart disease. Diffuse ECV changes are difficult to assess or quantify with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) using conventional late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), or pre- or post-contrast T1-mapping alone. ECV measurement circumvents factors that confound T1-weighted images or T1-maps, and has been shown to correlate well with diffuse myocardial fibrosis. The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate an automated method for producing a pixel-wise map of ECV that would be adequately robust for clinical work flow.

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 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Germany 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 266 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 72 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Student > Master 21 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 6%
Other 59 21%
Unknown 30 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 48%
Engineering 41 15%
Computer Science 18 6%
Physics and Astronomy 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 47 17%
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 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#8,320,761
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#673
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,729
of 187,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#4
of 21 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 66th 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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 187,077 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.