↓ Skip to main content

A disproportionate contribution of papillary muscles and trabeculations to total left ventricular mass makes choice of cardiovascular magnetic resonance analysis technique critical in Fabry disease

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
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.
Title
A disproportionate contribution of papillary muscles and trabeculations to total left ventricular mass makes choice of cardiovascular magnetic resonance analysis technique critical in Fabry disease
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0114-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Kozor, Fraser Callaghan, Michel Tchan, Christian Hamilton-Craig, Gemma A Figtree, Stuart M Grieve

Abstract

Sphingolipid deposition in Fabry disease causes left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, of which the accurate assessment is essential. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed as the gold standard. However, there is debate in the literature as to whether papillary muscles and trabeculations (P&T) should be included in LV mass (LVM). We examined the accuracy of 2 CMR methods of assessing LVM and LV volumes, including (M inc P&T) or excluding (M ex P&T) P&T, in a cohort of Fabry disease subjects (n = 20) compared to a matched control group (n = 20). Significant differences between the two measurement methods were observed for LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LVM, and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in both groups. These differences were significantly greater in the Fabry group compared to controls, except for LVEF. P&T contributed to a greater percentage of LVM in Fabry subjects than controls (20 ± 1% vs 13 ± 2%, p = 0.01). In the control group, both volume-derived methods (M inc P&T or MexP&T) provided accurate SV measurements compared with the internal reference of velocity-encoded aortic flow. In the Fabry group, inclusion of P&T (M inc P&T) resulted in good concordance with phase contrast flow imaging (difference between flow and volume techniques: 1 ± 3 ml, p = 0.7). The volumetric contribution of P&T in Fabry disease is markedly increased relative to healthy controls. Failure to account for this results in significant underestimation of LVM and results in misclassification of a proportion of subjects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 36%
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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,011,404
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#931
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,558
of 269,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#15
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 269,647 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.