| Title |
Imaging atherosclerosis with hybrid [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging: What Leonardo da Vinci could not see
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-012-9631-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Myra S. Cocker, Brian Mc Ardle, J. David Spence, Cheemun Lum, Robert R. Hammond, Deidre C. Ongaro, Matthew A. McDonald, Robert A. deKemp, Jean-Claude Tardif, Rob S. B. Beanlands |
| Abstract |
Prodigious efforts and landmark discoveries have led toward significant advances in our understanding of atherosclerosis. Despite significant efforts, atherosclerosis continues globally to be a leading cause of mortality and reduced quality of life. With surges in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes, atherosclerosis is expected to have an even more pronounced impact upon the global burden of disease. It is imperative to develop strategies for the early detection of disease. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging utilizing [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) may provide a non-invasive means of characterizing inflammatory activity within atherosclerotic plaque, thus serving as a surrogate biomarker for detecting vulnerable plaque. The aim of this review is to explore the rationale for performing FDG imaging, provide an overview into the mechanism of action, and summarize findings from the early application of FDG PET imaging in the clinical setting to evaluate vascular disease. Alternative imaging biomarkers and approaches are briefly discussed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 48% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
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 21 June 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,583
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,271
of 193,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 193,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.