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.
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 |
Intra- and Inter-Scanner Reliability of Voxel-Wise Whole-Brain Analytic Metrics for Resting State fMRI
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fninf.2018.00054 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Na Zhao, Li-Xia Yuan, Xi-Ze Jia, Xu-Feng Zhou, Xin-Ping Deng, Hong-Jian He, Jianhui Zhong, Jue Wang, Yu-Feng Zang |
| Abstract |
As the multi-center studies with resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (RS-fMRI) have been more and more applied to neuropsychiatric studies, both intra- and inter-scanner reliability of RS-fMRI are becoming increasingly important. The amplitude of low frequency fluctuation (ALFF), regional homogeneity (ReHo), and degree centrality (DC) are 3 main RS-fMRI metrics in a way of voxel-wise whole-brain (VWWB) analysis. Although the intra-scanner reliability (i.e., test-retest reliability) of these metrics has been widely investigated, few studies has investigated their inter-scanner reliability. In the current study, 21 healthy young subjects were enrolled and scanned with blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) RS-fMRI in 3 visits (V1 - V3), with V1 and V2 scanned on a GE MR750 scanner and V3 on a Siemens Prisma. RS-fMRI data were collected under two conditions, eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC), each lasting 8 minutes. We firstly evaluated the intra- and inter-scanner reliability of ALFF, ReHo, and DC. Secondly, we measured systematic difference between two scanning visits of the same scanner as well as between two scanners. Thirdly, to account for the potential difference of intra- and inter-scanner local magnetic field inhomogeneity, we measured the difference of relative BOLD signal intensity to the mean BOLD signal intensity of the whole brain between each pair of visits. Last, we used percent amplitude of fluctuation (PerAF) to correct the difference induced by relative BOLD signal intensity. The inter-scanner reliability was much worse than intra-scanner reliability; Among the VWWB metrics, DC showed the worst (both for intra-scanner and inter-scanner comparisons). PerAF showed similar intra-scanner reliability with ALFF and the best reliability among all the 4 metrics. PerAF reduced the influence of BOLD signal intensity and hence increase the inter-scanner reliability of ALFF. For multi-center studies, inter-scanner reliability should be taken into account. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 15 | 31% |
| Psychology | 8 | 17% |
| Engineering | 5 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
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 01 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,989,170
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#600
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,629
of 333,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#18
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 333,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.