↓ Skip to main content

Susceptibility weighted imaging: differentiating between calcification and hemosiderin*

Overview of attention for article published in Radiologia Brasileira, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Susceptibility weighted imaging: differentiating between calcification and hemosiderin*
Published in
Radiologia Brasileira, April 2015
DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.0010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeam Haroldo Oliveira Barbosa, Antonio Carlos Santos, Carlos Ernesto Garrido Salmon

Abstract

To present a detailed explanation on the processing of magnetic susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), demonstrating the effects of echo time and sensitive mask on the differentiation between calcification and hemosiderin. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance (magnitude and phase) images of six patients (age range 41- 54 years; four men) were retrospectively selected. The SWI images processing was performed using the Matlab's own routine. Four out of the six patients showed calcifications at computed tomography images and their SWI images demonstrated hyperintense signal at the calcification regions. The other patients did not show any calcifications at computed tomography, and SWI revealed the presence of hemosiderin deposits with hypointense signal. The selection of echo time and of the mask may change all the information on SWI images, and compromise the diagnostic reliability. Amongst the possible masks, the authors highlight that the sigmoid mask allows for contrasting calcifications and hemosiderin on a single SWI image.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Unknown 31 86%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Radiologia Brasileira
#114
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,735
of 279,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiologia Brasileira
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 279,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.