↓ Skip to main content

Technical Note: Development of a cranial phantom for assessing perfusion, diffusion, and biomechanics

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
24 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.
Article details
Title
Technical Note: Development of a cranial phantom for assessing perfusion, diffusion, and biomechanics
Published in
Medical Physics, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/mp.12182
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A novel cranial phantom was developed to simulate the relationships among factors such as blood perfusion, water diffusion, and biomechanics in intracranial tissue. The cranial phantom consisted of a high-density polypropylene filter (mimicking brain parenchyma) with intra- and extra-filter spaces (mimicking cerebral artery and vein, respectively), and a capacitor space (mimicking the cerebrospinal fluid space). Pulsatile and steady flow with different flow rates were applied to the cranial phantom using a programmable pump. On 3.0-T MRI, the measurements of the internal pressure in the phantom, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with monoexponential analysis in the filter, and total simulated cerebral blood flow (tSCBF) into the phantom were synchronized with the pulsatile flow. We obtained their maximum changes during the pulsation period (ΔP, ΔADC, and ΔtSCBF, respectively). Then, the compliance index (CI) was calculated by dividing the volume change (ΔV) by the ΔP in the phantom. Moreover, the same measurements were repeated after the compliance of the phantom was reduced by increasing the water volume in the capacitor space. Under steady flow conditions, we determined the regional SCBF (rSCBF) and perfusion-related and restricted diffusion coefficients (D* and D, respectively) with biexponential analysis in the filter. The internal pressure, ADC, and tSCBF varied over the pulsation period depending on the input flow. Moreover, the ΔP, ΔADC, ΔtSCBF, and rSCBF increased with the input flow rate. Compared to the high compliance condition, in the low compliance condition, the ΔP and ΔADC were higher by factors of 2.5 and 1.3, respectively, and the CI was smaller by a factor of 2.7, whereas the ΔV was almost unchanged. The D* was strongly affected by the input flow. Our original phantom models the relationships among the blood perfusion, water diffusion, and biomechanics of the intracranial tissue, potentially facilitating the validation of novel MRI techniques and optimization of imaging parameters. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 24 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 %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Engineering 4 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
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 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,000,155
of 24,578,676 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#6,311
of 7,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,366
of 313,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#109
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,578,676 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,889 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 313,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.