| Title |
Principles of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking and echocardiographic speckle tracking for informed clinical use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0269-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gianni Pedrizzetti, Piet Claus, Philip J. Kilner, Eike Nagel |
| Abstract |
Tissue tracking technology of routinely acquired cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) cine acquisitions has increased the apparent ease and availability of non-invasive assessments of myocardial deformation in clinical research and practice. Its widespread availability thanks to the fact that this technology can in principle be applied on images that are part of every CMR or echocardiographic protocol. However, the two modalities are based on very different methods of image acquisition and reconstruction, each with their respective strengths and limitations. The image tracking methods applied are not necessarily directly comparable between the modalities, or with those based on dedicated CMR acquisitions for strain measurement such as tagging or displacement encoding. Here we describe the principles underlying the image tracking methods for CMR and echocardiography, and the translation of the resulting tracking estimates into parameters suited to describe myocardial mechanics. Technical limitations are presented with the objective of suggesting potential solutions that may allow informed and appropriate use in clinical applications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 36% |
| Colombia | 1 | 9% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 343 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 340 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 51 | 15% |
| Researcher | 48 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 8% |
| Other | 82 | 24% |
| Unknown | 81 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 169 | 49% |
| Engineering | 29 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 15 | 4% |
| Unknown | 107 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 27 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,563,459
of 25,578,098 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#45
of 1,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,462
of 350,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,578,098 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,380 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 350,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.