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 |
Using CT Data to Improve the Quantitative Analysis of 18F-FBB PET Neuroimages
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00158 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fermín Segovia, Raquel Sánchez-Vañó, Juan M. Górriz, Javier Ramírez, Pablo Sopena-Novales, Nathalie Testart Dardel, Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández, Manuel Gómez-Río |
| Abstract |
18F-FBB PET is a neuroimaging modality that is been increasingly used to assess brain amyloid deposits in potential patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this work, we analyze the usefulness of these data to distinguish between AD and non-AD patients. A dataset with 18F-FBB PET brain images from 94 subjects diagnosed with AD and other disorders was evaluated by means of multiple analyses based on t-test, ANOVA, Fisher Discriminant Analysis and Support Vector Machine (SVM) classification. In addition, we propose to calculate amyloid standardized uptake values (SUVs) using only gray-matter voxels, which can be estimated using Computed Tomography (CT) images. This approach allows assessing potential brain amyloid deposits along with the gray matter loss and takes advantage of the structural information provided by most of the scanners used for PET examination, which allow simultaneous PET and CT data acquisition. The results obtained in this work suggest that SUVs calculated according to the proposed method allow AD and non-AD subjects to be more accurately differentiated than using SUVs calculated with standard approaches. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 2 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 20% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 29 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,817,454
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,157
of 4,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,745
of 329,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#42
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 329,367 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.