↓ Skip to main content

Image quality at synthetic brain magnetic resonance imaging in children

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Image quality at synthetic brain magnetic resonance imaging in children
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00247-017-3913-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

So Mi Lee, Young Hun Choi, Jung-Eun Cheon, In-One Kim, Seung Hyun Cho, Won Hwa Kim, Hye Jung Kim, Hyun-Hae Cho, Sun-Kyoung You, Sook-Hyun Park, Moon Jung Hwang

Abstract

The clinical application of the multi-echo, multi-delay technique of synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) generates multiple sequences in a single acquisition but has mainly been used in adults. To evaluate the image quality of synthetic brain MR in children compared with that of conventional images. Twenty-nine children (median age: 6 years, range: 0-16 years) underwent synthetic and conventional imaging. Synthetic (T2-weighted, T1-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery [FLAIR]) images with settings matching those of the conventional images were generated. The overall image quality, gray/white matter differentiation, lesion conspicuity and image degradations were rated on a 5-point scale. The relative contrasts were assessed quantitatively and acquisition times for the two imaging techniques were compared. Synthetic images were inferior due to more pronounced image degradations; however, there were no significant differences for T1- and T2-weighted images in children <2 years old. The quality of T1- and T2-weighted images were within the diagnostically acceptable range. FLAIR images showed greatly reduced quality. Gray/white matter differentiation was comparable or better in synthetic T1- and T2-weighted images, but poorer in FLAIR images. There was no effect on lesion conspicuity. Synthetic images had equal or greater relative contrast. Acquisition time was approximately two-thirds of that for conventional sequences. Synthetic T1- and T2-weighted images were diagnostically acceptable, but synthetic FLAIR images were not. Lesion conspicuity and gray/white matter differentiation were comparable to conventional MRI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Engineering 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,043,899
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,027
of 2,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,954
of 316,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#29
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,092 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 316,691 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.