1,721,011 research outputs found

    Reference values for atrial size and function in children and young adults by cardiac MR: a study of the German competence network congenital heart defects

    No full text
    Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: To provide reference data for atrial size and function during childhood and adolescence by cardiac MR (CMR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively examined 115 healthy children and adolescents (mean age, 12.4 +/- 4.1 years; range, 4.4-20.3 years) by CMR using a stack of standard two-dimensional steady-state free-precession slices acquisition covering the whole heart in transverse plane. Maximal and minimal volumes of both atria and their respective calculated cyclic volume change (CVC) and emptying fraction (EMF) were determined and reference centile curves were computed (lambda-mu-sigma [LMS]-method). RESULTS: Gender differences were noted for atrial volumes and derived parameters. Maximal right atrial (RA) volume for girls was 53.3 +/- 11.8 mL/m(2) and 58.1 +/- 15.7 for boys (P = 0.064), minimal RA volume for girls/boys was 23.2 +/- 6.2/27.0 +/- 7.9 mL/m(2) (P = 0.004). Maximal left atrial (LA) volume for girls/boys was 44.2 +/- 8.7/46.7 +/- 10.1 mL/m(2) (P = 0.143) and minimal LA volume for girls/boys was 19.2 +/- 3.9/21.5 +/- 5.1 mL/m(2) (P = 0.009). For both atria, CVC was higher for boys, but EMF higher for girls. Percentiles of RA/LA volumes showed steeper increase in boys than in girls, who in fact showed a plateau after age 14. CONCLUSION: Pediatric sex-specific reference centiles are provided to improve clinical interpretation and facilitate future research involving CMR-derived atrial function

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore