↓ Skip to main content

Whole Brain Volume Measured from 1.5T versus 3T MRI in Healthy Subjects and Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroimaging, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Whole Brain Volume Measured from 1.5T versus 3T MRI in Healthy Subjects and Patients with Multiple Sclerosis
Published in
Journal of Neuroimaging, June 2015
DOI 10.1111/jon.12271
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Whole brain atrophy is a putative outcome measure in monitoring relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). With the ongoing MRI transformation from 1.5T to 3T, there is an unmet need to calibrate this change. We evaluated brain parenchymal volumes (BPVs) from 1.5T versus 3T in MS and normal controls (NC). We studied MS [n = 26, age (mean, range) 43 (21-55), 22 (85%) RRMS, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 1.98 (0-6.5), timed 25 foot walk (T25FW) 5.95 (3.2-33.0 seconds)] and NC [n = 9, age 45 (31-53)]. Subjects underwent 1.5T (Phillips) and 3T (GE) 3-dimensional T1-weighted scans to derive normalized BPV from an automated SIENAX pipeline. Neuropsychological testing was according to consensus panel recommendations. BPV-1.5T was higher than BPV-3T [mean (95% CI) + 45.7 mL (+35.3, +56.1), P < .00001], most likely due to improved tissue-CSF contrast at 3T. BPV-3T showed a larger volume decrease and larger effect size in detecting brain atrophy in MS versus NC [-74.5 mL (-126.5, -22.5), P = .006, d = .92] when compared to BPV-1.5T [-51.3.1 mL (-99.8, -2.8), P = .04, d = .67]. Correlations between BPV-1.5T and EDSS (r = -.43, P = .027) and BPV-3T and EDSS (r = -.49, P = .011) and between BPV-1.5T and T25FW (r = -.46, P = .018) and BPV-3T and T25FW (r = -.56, P = .003) slightly favored 3T. BPV-cognition correlations were significant (P < .05) for 6 of 11 subscales to a similar degree at 1.5T (r range = .44-.58) and 3T (r range = .43-.53). Field strength may impact whole brain volume measurements in patients with MS though the differences are not too divergent between 1.5T and 3T.

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 107 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 %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 21%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Master 13 12%
Other 5 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 34 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 28%
Neuroscience 8 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Engineering 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 40 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,793,093
of 29,301,366 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroimaging
#156
of 1,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,659
of 283,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroimaging
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,301,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,223 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 283,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 93% of its contemporaries.