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 |
Innovative Perspective: Gadolinium-Free Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Long-Term Follow-Up after Kidney Transplantation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2017.00296 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mick J. M. van Eijs, Arjan D. van Zuilen, Anneloes de Boer, Martijn Froeling, Tri Q. Nguyen, Jaap A. Joles, Tim Leiner, Marianne C. Verhaar |
| Abstract |
Since the mid-1980s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been investigated as a non- or minimally invasive tool to probe kidney allograft function. Despite this long-standing interest, MRI still plays a subordinate role in daily practice of transplantation nephrology. With the introduction of new functional MRI techniques, administration of exogenous gadolinium-based contrast agents has often become unnecessary and true non-invasive assessment of allograft function has become possible. This raises the question why application of MRI in the follow-up of kidney transplantation remains restricted, despite promising results. Current literature on kidney allograft MRI is mainly focused on assessment of (sub) acute kidney injury after transplantation. The aim of this review is to survey whether MRI can provide valuable diagnostic information beyond 1 year after kidney transplantation from a mechanistic point of view. The driving force behind chronic allograft nephropathy is believed to be chronic hypoxia. Based on this, techniques that visualize kidney perfusion and oxygenation, scarring, and parenchymal inflammation deserve special interest. We propose that functional MRI mechanistically provides tools for diagnostic work-up in long-term follow-up of kidney allografts. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 22% |
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 38% |
| Engineering | 5 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,283,088
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,242
of 13,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,454
of 310,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#119
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 310,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 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 54% of its contemporaries.