↓ Skip to main content

Anatomic modeling using 3D printing: quality assurance and optimization

Overview of attention for article published in 3D Printing in Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 128)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Anatomic modeling using 3D printing: quality assurance and optimization
Published in
3D Printing in Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41205-017-0014-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuai Leng, Kiaran McGee, Jonathan Morris, Amy Alexander, Joel Kuhlmann, Thomas Vrieze, Cynthia H. McCollough, Jane Matsumoto

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide a framework for the development of a quality assurance (QA) program for use in medical 3D printing applications. An interdisciplinary QA team was built with expertise from all aspects of 3D printing. A systematic QA approach was established to assess the accuracy and precision of each step during the 3D printing process, including: image data acquisition, segmentation and processing, and 3D printing and cleaning. Validation of printed models was performed by qualitative inspection and quantitative measurement. The latter was achieved by scanning the printed model with a high resolution CT scanner to obtain images of the printed model, which were registered to the original patient images and the distance between them was calculated on a point-by-point basis. A phantom-based QA process, with two QA phantoms, was also developed. The phantoms went through the same 3D printing process as that of the patient models to generate printed QA models. Physical measurement, fit tests, and image based measurements were performed to compare the printed 3D model to the original QA phantom, with its known size and shape, providing an end-to-end assessment of errors involved in the complete 3D printing process. Measured differences between the printed model and the original QA phantom ranged from -0.32 mm to 0.13 mm for the line pair pattern. For a radial-ulna patient model, the mean distance between the original data set and the scanned printed model was -0.12 mm (ranging from -0.57 to 0.34 mm), with a standard deviation of 0.17 mm. A comprehensive QA process from image acquisition to completed model has been developed. Such a program is essential to ensure the required accuracy of 3D printed models for medical applications.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 46 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 35 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Physics and Astronomy 6 4%
Computer Science 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 52 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 August 2021.
All research outputs
#7,408,974
of 24,387,992 outputs
Outputs from 3D Printing in Medicine
#42
of 128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,702
of 313,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from 3D Printing in Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,387,992 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 313,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them