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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Zonally Magnified Oblique Multislice and Non-Zonally Magnified Oblique Multislice DWI of the Cervical Spinal Cord
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Neuroradiology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3174/ajnr.a5703 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Alizadeh, M.M. Poplawski, J. Fisher, R.J.T. Gorniak, A. Dresner, F.B. Mohamed, A.E. Flanders |
| Abstract |
The zonally magnified oblique multislice EPI (ZOOM-EPI) diffusion-weighted sequence has been visually shown to provide superior MR diffusion image quality compared with the full-FOV single-shot EPI sequence (non-ZOOM-EPI) in the adult cervical spinal cord. The purpose of this study was to examine the diffusion tensor imaging indices in the normal human cervical spinal cord between ZOOMED and non-ZOOMED DTI acquisitions and determine whether DTI values are comparable between direct and indirect age-matched groups. Fifty-four subjects 23-58 years of age (9 direct age-matched and 45 indirect age-matched) were scanned using a 1.5T scanner. Diffusion tensor indices including fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, axial diffusivity, and radial diffusivity were generated from the DTI dataset. These DTI values were calculated for both ZOOM and non-ZOOM acquisitions and compared at each intervertebral disc level. The variability of the DTI values for ZOOM and non-ZOOM sequences was measured using a coefficient of variation within direct and indirect age-matched controls. The mean diffusivity, axial diffusivity, and radial diffusivity values obtained along the cervical spinal cord in the age-matched controls showed a significant decrease using the ZOOM sequence (P = .05, P = .002, and P < .001). Mean fractional anisotropy showed a significant increase (P = .04) using the ZOOM sequence. The indirect age-matched controls showed a statistically significant increase in fractional anisotropy (P = .03) and a decrease in mean diffusivity (P = .002), axial diffusivity (P < .001), and radial diffusivity (P = .002) using the ZOOM sequence. Less variability has been shown in DTI using the ZOOM sequence compared with the non-ZOOM sequence in both direct and indirect age groups. The ZOOM sequence exhibited higher SNR (SNRZOOM = 22.84 ± 7.59) compared with the non-ZOOM sequence (SNRnon-ZOOM = 19.7 ± 7.05). However, when we used a 2-tailed t test assuming unequal variances, the ZOOM sequence did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase. ZOOM DTI acquisition methods provide superior image quality and precision over non-ZOOM techniques and are recommended over conventional full-FOV single-shot EPI DTI for clinical applications in cervical spinal cord imaging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 30% |
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 20% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
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 25 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,163,389
of 25,192,722 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#2,756
of 5,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,000
of 334,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#41
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,192,722 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 334,982 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 70 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.