↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Exposures to Magnetic Resonance Imaging’s Complex Mixture of Magnetic Fields for In Vivo, In Vitro, and Epidemiologic Studies of Health Effects for Staff and Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Assessing Exposures to Magnetic Resonance Imaging’s Complex Mixture of Magnetic Fields for In Vivo, In Vitro, and Epidemiologic Studies of Health Effects for Staff and Patients
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Frankel, Jonna Wilén, Kjell Hansson Mild

Abstract

A complex mixture of electromagnetic fields is used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): static, low-frequency, and radio frequency magnetic fields. Commonly, the static magnetic field ranges from one to three Tesla. The low-frequency field can reach several millitesla and with a time derivative of the order of some Tesla per second. The radiofrequency (RF) field has a magnitude in the microtesla range giving rise to specific absorption rate values of a few Watts per kilogram. Very little attention has been paid to the case where there is a combined exposure to several different fields at the same time. Some studies have shown genotoxic effects in cells after exposure to an MRI scan while others have not demonstrated any effects. A typical MRI exam includes muliple imaging sequences of varying length and intensity, to produce different types of images. Each sequence is designed with a particular purpose in mind, so one sequence can, for example, be optimized for clearly showing fat water contrast, while another is optimized for high-resolution detail. It is of the utmost importance that future experimental studies give a thorough description of the exposure they are using, and not just a statement such as "An ordinary MRI sequence was used." Even if the sequence is specified, it can differ substantially between manufacturers on, e.g., RF pulse height, width, and duty cycle. In the latest SCENIHR opinion, it is stated that there is very little information regarding the health effects of occupational exposure to MRI fields, and long-term prospective or retrospective cohort studies on workers are recommended as a high priority. They also state that MRI is increasingly used in pediatric diagnostic imaging, and a cohort study into the effects of MRI exposure on children is recommended as a high priority. For the exposure assessment in epidemiological studies, there is a clear difference between patients and staff and further work is needed on this. Studies that explore the possible differences between MRI scan sequences and compare them in terms of exposure level are warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Engineering 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,933,348
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,108
of 10,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,963
of 332,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#93
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 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 10,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 332,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.