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 |
The Role of MR Imaging in Assessment of Brain Damage from Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A Review of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Neuroradiology, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3174/ajnr.a3489 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Beppu |
| Abstract |
The aim of this article is to review how MR imaging and associated imaging modalities provide clinicopathologic information on brain damage after carbon monoxide poisoning. Initially, many authors documented typical findings of conventional MR imaging in the gray matter structures such as the globus pallidus and in various regions of cerebral white matter. The focus of investigation has since shifted to observation of cerebral white matter areas that are more frequently detected on MR imaging and are more responsible for chronic symptoms than the gray matter. DWI has dramatically contributed to the ability to quantitatively assess cerebral white matter damage. Subsequently, DTI has enabled more sensitive evaluation than DWI and can demonstrate progressive pathologic changes in the early stage, allowing prediction of chronic conditions. In addition, MR spectroscopy reveals changes in metabolite levels, offering quantitative clinicopathologic information on brain damage after carbon monoxide poisoning. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 56% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
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 14 April 2014.
All research outputs
#18,337,420
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#4,139
of 4,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,422
of 197,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#63
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 197,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.