↓ Skip to main content

Whole-Brain Microscopy Meets In Vivo Neuroimaging: Techniques, Benefits, and Limitations

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Imaging and Biology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Whole-Brain Microscopy Meets In Vivo Neuroimaging: Techniques, Benefits, and Limitations
Published in
Molecular Imaging and Biology, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11307-016-0988-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Aswendt, Martin Schwarz, Walid M. Abdelmoula, Jouke Dijkstra, Stefanie Dedeurwaerdere

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and optical imaging have emerged as key tools to understand brain function and neurological disorders in preclinical mouse models. They offer the unique advantage of monitoring individual structural and functional changes over time. What remained unsolved until recently was to generate whole-brain microscopy data which can be correlated to the 3D in vivo neuroimaging data. Conventional histological sections are inappropriate especially for neuronal tracing or the unbiased screening for molecular targets through the whole brain. As part of the European Society for Molecular Imaging (ESMI) meeting 2016 in Utrecht, the Netherlands, we addressed this issue in the Molecular Neuroimaging study group meeting. Presentations covered new brain clearing methods, light sheet microscopes for large samples, and automatic registration of microscopy to in vivo imaging data. In this article, we summarize the discussion; give an overview of the novel techniques; and discuss the practical needs, benefits, and limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Unknown 79 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Researcher 18 22%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 25 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 19%
Engineering 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,930,204
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Imaging and Biology
#197
of 837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,816
of 347,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Imaging and Biology
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 347,924 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.