↓ Skip to main content

Gradient nonlinearity effects on upper cervical spinal cord area measurement from 3D T1‐weighted brain MRI acquisitions

Overview of attention for article published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Gradient nonlinearity effects on upper cervical spinal cord area measurement from 3D T1‐weighted brain MRI acquisitions
Published in
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/mrm.26776
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To explore (i) the variability of upper cervical cord area (UCCA) measurements from volumetric brain 3D T1 -weighted scans related to gradient nonlinearity (GNL) and subject positioning; (ii) the effect of vendor-implemented GNL corrections; and (iii) easily applicable methods that can be used to retrospectively correct data. A multiple sclerosis patient was scanned at seven sites using 3T MRI scanners with the same 3D T1 -weighted protocol without GNL-distortion correction. Two healthy subjects and a phantom were additionally scanned at a single site with varying table positions. The 2D and 3D vendor-implemented GNL-correction algorithms and retrospective methods based on (i) phantom data fit, (ii) normalization with C2 vertebral body diameters, and (iii) the Jacobian determinant of nonlinear registrations to a template were tested. Depending on the positioning of the subject, GNL introduced up to 15% variability in UCCA measurements from volumetric brain T1 -weighted scans when no distortion corrections were used. The 3D vendor-implemented correction methods and the three proposed methods reduced this variability to less than 3%. Our results raise awareness of the significant impact that GNL can have on quantitative UCCA studies, and point the way to prospectively and retrospectively managing GNL distortions in a variety of settings, including clinical environments. Magn Reson Med, 2017. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

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 50 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 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 19 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 30%
Engineering 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Psychology 1 2%
Unknown 23 46%
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 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#21,938,746
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
#6,310
of 7,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,281
of 321,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
#84
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,045 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 321,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 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.