↓ Skip to main content

Improved Quantification of Cerebral Vein Oxygenation Using Partial Volume Correction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Improved Quantification of Cerebral Vein Oxygenation Using Partial Volume Correction
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip G. D. Ward, Audrey P. Fan, Parnesh Raniga, David G. Barnes, David L. Dowe, Amanda C. L. Ng, Gary F. Egan

Abstract

Purpose: Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) enables cerebral venous characterization and physiological measurements, such as oxygen extraction fraction (OEF). The exquisite sensitivity of QSM to deoxygenated blood makes it possible to image small veins; however partial volume effects must be addressed for accurate quantification. We present a new method, Iterative Cylindrical Fitting (ICF), to estimate voxel-based partial volume effects for susceptibility maps and use it to improve OEF quantification of small veins with diameters between 1.5 and 4 voxels. Materials and Methods: Simulated QSM maps were generated to assess the performance of the ICF method over a range of vein geometries with varying echo times and noise levels. The ICF method was also applied to in vivo human brain data to assess the feasibility and behavior of OEF measurements compared to the maximum intensity voxel (MIV) method. Results: Improved quantification of OEF measurements was achieved for vessels with contrast to noise greater than 3.0 and vein radii greater than 0.75 voxels. The ICF method produced improved quantitative accuracy of OEF measurement compared to the MIV approach (mean OEF error 7.7 vs. 12.4%). The ICF method provided estimates of vein radius (mean error <27%) and partial volume maps (root mean-squared error <13%). In vivo results demonstrated consistent estimates of OEF along vein segments. Conclusion: OEF quantification in small veins (1.5-4 voxels in diameter) had lower error when using partial volume estimates from the ICF method.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Student > Master 2 7%
Professor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 24%
Neuroscience 7 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 34%
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 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9,459
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,427
of 325,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#173
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 325,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.