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 |
Removing physiological motion from intravital and clinical functional imaging data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
eLife, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.7554/elife.35800 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sean C Warren, Max Nobis, Astrid Magenau, Yousuf H Mohammed, David Herrmann, Imogen Moran, Claire Vennin, James RW Conway, Pauline Mélénec, Thomas R Cox, Yingxiao Wang, Jennifer P Morton, Heidi CE Welch, Douglas Strathdee, Kurt I Anderson, Tri Giang Phan, Michael S Roberts, Paul Timpson |
| Abstract |
Intravital microscopy can provide unique insights into the function of biological processes in a native context. However, physiological motion caused by peristalsis, respiration and the heartbeat can present a significant challenge, particularly for functional readouts such as fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM), which require longer acquisition times to obtain a quantitative readout. Here, we present and benchmark Galene, a versatile multi-platform software tool for image-based correction of sample motion blurring in both time resolved and conventional laser scanning fluorescence microscopy data in two and three dimensions. We show that Galene is able to resolve intravital FLIM-FRET images of intra-abdominal organs in murine models and NADH autofluorescence of human dermal tissue imaging subject to a wide range of physiological motions. Thus, Galene can enable FLIM imaging in situations where a stable imaging platform is not always possible and rescue previously discarded quantitative imaging data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 5 | 23% |
| United States | 4 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Portugal | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Finland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 59% |
| Scientists | 8 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Engineering | 5 | 10% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,815,035
of 24,510,033 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#7,288
of 14,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,917
of 331,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#209
of 386 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,510,033 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 331,138 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 386 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.