↓ Skip to main content

Predictive Physiological Modeling of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention – Is Virtual Treatment Planning the Future?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Predictive Physiological Modeling of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention – Is Virtual Treatment Planning the Future?
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.01107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca C. Gosling, Paul D. Morris, Patricia V. Lawford, D. Rodney Hose, Julian P. Gunn

Abstract

Computational modeling has been used routinely in the pre-clinical development of medical devices such as coronary artery stents. The ability to simulate and predict physiological and structural parameters such as flow disturbance, wall shear-stress, and mechanical strain patterns is beneficial to stent manufacturers. These methods are now emerging as useful clinical tools, used by physicians in the assessment and management of patients. Computational models, which can predict the physiological response to intervention, offer clinicians the ability to evaluate a number of different treatment strategies in silico prior to treating the patient in the cardiac catheter laboratory. For the first time clinicians can perform a patient-specific assessment prior to making treatment decisions. This could be advantageous in patients with complex disease patterns where the optimal treatment strategy is not clear. This article reviews the key advances and the potential barriers to clinical adoption and translation of these virtual treatment planning models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 35%
Researcher 4 17%
Unspecified 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Engineering 5 22%
Unspecified 2 9%
Mathematics 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,514,576
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,434
of 14,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,049
of 331,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#218
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,046 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 66% 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 331,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 487 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 53% of its contemporaries.