↓ Skip to main content

Three-dimensional substructure measurements for the differential diagnosis of ground glass nodules

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Three-dimensional substructure measurements for the differential diagnosis of ground glass nodules
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0438-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mingzheng Peng, Gang Yu, Chengzhong Zhang, Cuidi Li, Jinwu Wang

Abstract

We analyzed the differences between maximum and peak computed tomography (CT) numbers (M-P), respectively representing the densities of the solid center and the main periphery of ground-glass nodules (GGNs), and the average change in M-P velocity (V(M-P)) during follow-up to differentiate between pre-invasive (PIA) and invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC). Data of 102 patients were retrospectively collected and analyzed in our study including 43 PIAs and 59 IACs. Diameters, total volumes, and the maximum and peak CT numbers in CT number histograms were measured and followed for at least 3 months. This study was registered retrospectively. The M-P values for IACs were higher than those for PIAs (p = 0.001), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.810 and a threshold of 489.5 Hounsfield units (HU) in ROC analysis. The V(M-P) values for IACs were smaller than those for PIAs (p = 0.04), with an AUC of 0.805 and a threshold of 11.01 HU/day. M-P and V(M-P) values may help distinguish IACs from PIAs by representing the changes in the sub-structural densities of GGNs during follow-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 33%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Psychology 1 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 29 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,541,585
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#756
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,717
of 317,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 317,772 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 52% of its contemporaries.