Arnoldo Santos, Leticia Fernández-Friera, María Villalba, Beatriz López-Melgar, Samuel España, Jesús Mateo, Ruben A. Mota, Jesús Jiménez-Borreguero, Jesús Ruiz-Cabello
Abstract
Cardiovascular imaging has become an indispensable tool for patient diagnosis and follow up. Probably the wide clinical applications of imaging are due to the possibility of a detailed and high quality description and quantification of cardiovascular system structure and function. Also phenomena that involve complex physiological mechanisms and biochemical pathways, such as inflammation and ischemia, can be visualized in a non-destructive way. The widespread use and evolution of imaging would not have been possible without animal studies. Animal models have allowed for instance, (i) the technical development of different imaging tools, (ii) to test hypothesis generated from human studies and finally, (iii) to evaluate the translational relevance assessment of in vitro and ex-vivo results. In this review, we will critically describe the contribution of animal models to the use of biomedical imaging in cardiovascular medicine. We will discuss the characteristics of the most frequent models used in/for imaging studies. We will cover the major findings of animal studies focused in the cardiovascular use of the repeatedly used imaging techniques in clinical practice and experimental studies. We will also describe the physiological findings and/or learning processes for imaging applications coming from models of the most common cardiovascular diseases. In these diseases, imaging research using animals has allowed the study of aspects such as: ventricular size, shape, global function, and wall thickening, local myocardial function, myocardial perfusion, metabolism and energetic assessment, infarct quantification, vascular lesion characterization, myocardial fiber structure, and myocardial calcium uptake. Finally we will discuss the limitations and future of imaging research with animal models.
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 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,239,950
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#4,678
of 16,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,732
of 283,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#38
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,070 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 283,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 59% of its contemporaries.
