The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Minimum Reporting Standards for in vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRSinMRS): Experts' consensus recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
NMR in Biomedicine, February 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/nbm.4484 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander Lin, Ovidiu Andronesi, Wolfgang Bogner, In‐Young Choi, Eduardo Coello, Cristina Cudalbu, Christoph Juchem, Graham J. Kemp, Roland Kreis, Martin Krššák, Phil Lee, Andrew A. Maudsley, Martin Meyerspeer, Vladamir Mlynarik, Jamie Near, Gülin Öz, Aimie L. Peek, Nicolaas A. Puts, Eva‐Maria Ratai, Ivan Tkáč, Paul G. Mullins, Experts' Working Group on Reporting Standards for MR Spectroscopy |
| Abstract |
The translation of MRS to clinical practice has been impeded by the lack of technical standardization. There are multiple methods of acquisition, post-processing, and analysis whose details greatly impact the interpretation of the results. These details are often not fully reported, making it difficult to assess MRS studies on a standardized basis. This hampers the reviewing of manuscripts, limits the reproducibility of study results, and complicates meta-analysis of the literature. In this paper a consensus group of MRS experts provides minimum guidelines for the reporting of MRS methods and results, including the standardized description of MRS hardware, data acquisition, analysis, and quality assessment. This consensus statement describes each of these requirements in detail and includes a checklist to assist authors and journal reviewers and to provide a practical way for journal editors to ensure that MRS studies are reported in full. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 14% |
| Australia | 6 | 12% |
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 25 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 51% |
| Scientists | 22 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 137 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 23% |
| Researcher | 20 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 41 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 32 | 23% |
| Engineering | 11 | 8% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 10 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 52 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#930,627
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from NMR in Biomedicine
#12
of 1,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,618
of 545,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NMR in Biomedicine
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,964 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 545,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.