↓ Skip to main content

Influence of heart rate on coronary calcium scores: a multi-manufacturer phantom study

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Influence of heart rate on coronary calcium scores: a multi-manufacturer phantom study
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10554-017-1293-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. R. van der Werf, M. J. Willemink, T. P. Willems, R. Vliegenthart, M. J. W. Greuter, T. Leiner

Abstract

To evaluate the influence of heart rate on coronary calcium scores (CCS) using a dynamic phantom on four high-end computed tomography (CT) systems from different manufacturers. Artificial coronary arteries were moved in an anthropomorphic chest phantom at linear velocities, corresponding to < 60, 60-75 and > 75 beats per minute (bpm). Data was acquired with routinely used clinical protocols for CCS on four high-end CT systems (CT1-CT4). CCS, quantified as Agatston and mass scores were compared to reference scores at < 60 bpm. Influence of heart rate was assessed for each system with the cardiac motion susceptibility (CMS) Index. At increased heart rates (> 75 bpm), Agatston scores of the low mass calcification were similar to the reference score, while Agatston scores of the medium and high mass calcification increased significantly up to 50% for all CT systems. Threefold CMS increases at > 75 bpm in comparison with < 60 bpm were shown. For medium and high mass calcifications, significant differences in CMS between CT systems were found. Heart rate substantially influences CCS for high-end CT systems of four major manufacturers, but CT systems differ in motion susceptibility. Follow-up CCS CT scans should be acquired on the same CT system and protocol, and preferably with comparable heart rates.

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 > Master 7 22%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 31%
Unspecified 3 9%
Physics and Astronomy 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,780,614
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#279
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,900
of 448,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#5
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 448,935 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.