| Title |
A comparison of phase imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping in the imaging of multiple sclerosis lesions at ultrahigh field
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10334-016-0560-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew John Cronin, Samuel Wharton, Ali Al-Radaideh, Cris Constantinescu, Nikos Evangelou, Richard Bowtell, Penny Anne Gowland |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the use of high-resolution phase and QSM images acquired at ultra-high field in the investigation of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions with peripheral rings, and to discuss their usefulness for drawing inferences about underlying tissue composition. Thirty-nine Subjects were scanned at 7 T, using 3D T 2*-weighted and T 1-weighted sequences. Phase images were then unwrapped and filtered, and quantitative susceptibility maps were generated using a thresholded k-space division method. Lesions were compared visually and using a 1D profiling algorithm. Lesions displaying peripheral rings in the phase images were identified in 10 of the 39 subjects. Dipolar projections were apparent in the phase images outside of the extent of several of these lesions; however, QSM images showed peripheral rings without such projections. These projections appeared ring-like in a small number of phase images where no ring was observed in QSM. 1D profiles of six well-isolated example lesions showed that QSM contrast corresponds more closely to the magnitude images than phase contrast. Phase images contain dipolar projections, which confounds their use in the investigation of tissue composition in MS lesions. Quantitative susceptibility maps correct these projections, providing insight into the composition of MS lesions showing peripheral rings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 71% |
| Scientists | 4 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Jordan | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 22% |
| Researcher | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 17% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 8 | 12% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 26 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,457,877
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
#1
of 492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,244
of 300,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 492 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 300,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.