↓ Skip to main content

Left Ventricular Noncompaction Anatomical Phenotype or Distinct Cardiomyopathy?

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
110 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Left Ventricular Noncompaction Anatomical Phenotype or Distinct Cardiomyopathy?
Published in
JACC, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.08.054
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan R. Weir-McCall, Phey Ming Yeap, Carla Papagiorcopulo, Kerrie Fitzgerald, Stephen J. Gandy, Matthew Lambert, Jill J.F. Belch, Ian Cavin, Roberta Littleford, Jennifer A. Macfarlane, Shona Z. Matthew, R. Stephen Nicholas, Allan D. Struthers, Frank Sullivan, Shelley A. Waugh, Richard D. White, J. Graeme Houston

Abstract

There is considerable overlap between left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) and other cardiomyopathies. LVNC has been reported in up to 40% of the general population, raising questions about whether it is a distinct pathological entity, a remodeling epiphenomenon, or merely an anatomical phenotype. The authors determined the prevalence and predictors of LVNC in a healthy population using 4 cardiac magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic criteria. Volunteers >40 years of age (N = 1,651) with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), a 10-year risk of CVD < 20%, and a B-type natriuretic peptide level greater than their gender-specific median underwent magnetic resonance imaging scan as part of the TASCFORCE (Tayside Screening for Cardiac Events) study. LVNC ratios were measured on the horizontal and vertical long axis cine sequences. All individuals with a noncompaction ratio of ≥2 underwent short axis systolic and diastolic LVNC ratio measurements, and quantification of noncompacted and compacted myocardial mass ratios. Those who met all 4 criteria were considered to have LVNC. Of 1,480 participants analyzed, 219 (14.8%) met ≥1 diagnostic criterion for LVNC, 117 (7.9%) met 2 criteria, 63 (4.3%) met 3 criteria, and 19 (1.3%) met all 4 diagnostic criteria. There was no difference in demographic or allometric measures between those with and without LVNC. Long axis noncompaction ratios were the least specific, with current diagnostic criteria positive in 219 (14.8%), whereas the noncompacted to compacted myocardial mass ratio was the most specific, only being met in 61 (4.4%). A significant proportion of an asymptomatic population free from CVD satisfy all currently used cardiac magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic criteria for LVNC, suggesting that those criteria have poor specificity for LVNC, or that LVNC is an anatomical phenotype rather than a distinct cardiomyopathy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Other 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 25 May 2019.
All research outputs
#675,146
of 25,727,480 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#1,716
of 16,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,806
of 319,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#49
of 304 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,727,480 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 319,123 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 304 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.