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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Gray blood late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance for improved detection of myocardial scar
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-018-0442-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ahmed S. Fahmy, Ulf Neisius, Connie W. Tsao, Sophie Berg, Elizabeth Goddu, Patrick Pierce, Tamer A. Basha, Long Ngo, Warren J. Manning, Reza Nezafat |
| Abstract |
Low scar-to-blood contrast in late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) MRI limits the visualization of scars adjacent to the blood pool. Nulling the blood signal improves scar detection but results in lack of contrast between myocardium and blood, which makes clinical evaluation of LGE images more difficult. GB-LGE contrast is achieved through partial suppression of the blood signal using T2 magnetization preparation between the inversion pulse and acquisition. The timing parameters of GB-LGE sequence are determined by optimizing a cost-function representing the desired tissue contrast. The proposed 3D GB-LGE sequence was evaluated using phantoms, human subjects (n = 45) and a swine model of myocardial infarction (n = 5). Two independent readers subjectively evaluated the image quality and ability to identify and localize scarring in GB-LGE compared to black-blood LGE (BB-LGE) (i.e., with complete blood nulling) and conventional (bright-blood) LGE. GB-LGE contrast was successfully generated in phantoms and all in-vivo scans. The scar-to-blood contrast was improved in GB-LGE compared to conventional LGE in humans (1.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.6 ± 0.4, P < 0.001) and in animals (1.5 ± 0.2 vs. -0.03 ± 0.2). In patients, GB-LGE detected more tissue scarring compared to BB-LGE and conventional LGE. The subjective scores of the GB-LGE ability for localizing LV scar and detecting papillary scar were improved as compared with both BB-LGE (P < 0.024) and conventional LGE (P < 0.001). In the swine infarction model, GB-LGE scores for the ability to localize LV scar scores were consistently higher than those of both BB-LGE and conventional-LGE. GB-LGE imaging improves the ability to identify and localize myocardial scarring compared to both BB-LGE and conventional LGE. Further studies are warranted to histologically validate GB-LGE. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 35% |
| United States | 5 | 22% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Russia | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 22% |
| Scientists | 4 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 28% |
| Engineering | 8 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,634,921
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#127
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,552
of 347,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 347,922 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.