↓ Skip to main content

Fat quantification in skeletal muscle using multigradient‐echo imaging: Comparison of fat and water references

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Fat quantification in skeletal muscle using multigradient‐echo imaging: Comparison of fat and water references
Published in
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/jmri.24972
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pernilla Peterson, Thobias Romu, Håkan Brorson, Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard, Sven Månsson

Abstract

To investigate the precision, accuracy, and repeatability of water/fat imaging-based fat quantification in muscle tissue using a large flip angle (FA) and a fat reference for the calculation of the proton density fat fraction (FF). Comparison is made to a small FA water reference approach. An Intralipid phantom and both forearms of six patients suffering from lymphedema and 10 healthy volunteers were investigated at 1.5T. Two multigradient-echo sequences with eight echo times and FAs of 10° and 85° were acquired. For healthy volunteers, the acquisition of the right arm was performed twice with repositioning. From each set, water reference FF and fat reference FF images were reconstructed and the average FF and the standard deviation were calculated within the subfascial compartment. The small FA water reference was considered the reference standard. A high agreement was found between the small FA water reference and large FA fat reference methods (FF bias = 0.31%). In this study, the large FA fat reference approach also resulted in higher precision (38% smaller FF standard deviation in homogenous muscle tissue), but no significant difference in repeatability between the various methods was detected (coefficient of repeatability of small FA water reference approach 0.41%). The precision of fat quantification in muscle tissue can be increased with maintained accuracy using a larger flip angle, if a fat reference instead of a water reference is used. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Physics and Astronomy 4 8%
Engineering 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 November 2022.
All research outputs
#5,240,498
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
#462
of 3,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,255
of 279,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
#7
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,884 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 279,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.