| Title |
Towards accurate and precise T1 and extracellular volume mapping in the myocardium: a guide to current pitfalls and their solutions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10334-017-0631-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donnie Cameron, Vassilios S. Vassiliou, David M. Higgins, Peter D. Gatehouse |
| Abstract |
Mapping of the longitudinal relaxation time (T 1) and extracellular volume (ECV) offers a means of identifying pathological changes in myocardial tissue, including diffuse changes that may be invisible to existing T 1-weighted methods. This technique has recently shown strong clinical utility for pathologies such as Anderson-Fabry disease and amyloidosis and has generated clinical interest as a possible means of detecting small changes in diffuse fibrosis; however, scatter in T 1 and ECV estimates offers challenges for detecting these changes, and bias limits comparisons between sites and vendors. There are several technical and physiological pitfalls that influence the accuracy (bias) and precision (repeatability) of T 1 and ECV mapping methods. The goal of this review is to describe the most significant of these, and detail current solutions, in order to aid scientists and clinicians to maximise the utility of T 1 mapping in their clinical or research setting. A detailed summary of technical and physiological factors, issues relating to contrast agents, and specific disease-related issues is provided, along with some considerations on the future directions of the field. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 39% |
| Engineering | 11 | 20% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#21,186,729
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
#424
of 492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,207
of 319,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 492 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 319,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.