↓ Skip to main content

Eddy current compensated double diffusion encoded (DDE) MRI

Overview of attention for article published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Eddy current compensated double diffusion encoded (DDE) MRI
Published in
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/mrm.26092
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Eddy currents might lead to image distortions in diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging. A method is proposed to reduce their effects on double diffusion encoding (DDE) MRI experiments and the thereby derived microscopic fractional anisotropy (μFA). The twice-refocused spin echo scheme was adapted for DDE measurements. To assess the effect of individual diffusion encodings on the image distortions, measurements of a grid of plastic rods in water were performed. The effect of eddy current compensation on μFA measurements was evaluated in the brains of six healthy volunteers. The use of an eddy current compensation reduced the signal variation. As expected, the distortions caused by the second encoding were larger than those of the first encoding, entailing a stronger need to compensate for them. For an optimal result, however, both encodings had to be compensated. The artifact reduction strongly improved the measurement of the μFA in ventricles and gray matter by reducing the overestimation. An effect of the compensation on absolute μFA values in white matter was not observed. It is advisable to compensate both encodings in DDE measurements for eddy currents. Magn Reson Med, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Physics and Astronomy 6 22%
Engineering 5 19%
Neuroscience 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 April 2021.
All research outputs
#18,433,196
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
#5,808
of 6,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,073
of 393,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
#54
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,819 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 393,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.