↓ Skip to main content

Dental age estimation in southern Chinese population using panoramic radiographs: validation of three population specific reference datasets

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Dental age estimation in southern Chinese population using panoramic radiographs: validation of three population specific reference datasets
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12880-018-0250-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jayakumar Jayaraman, Graham J. Roberts, Hai Ming Wong, Nigel M. King

Abstract

The accuracy of estimated age should depend on the reference data sets (RDS) from which the maturity scores or Ages of Attainment (AoA) were obtained. This study aimed to test the accuracy of age estimation from three different population specific dental reference datasets (RDS). Two hundred and sixty six dental panoramic radiographs of subjects belonging to southern Chinese ethnicity were scored and dental age (DA) was estimated from three reference datasets: French-Canadian, United Kingdom (UK) Caucasian and southern Chinese. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and for each method, the difference between the chronological age (CA) and dental age (CA-DA) was calculated using paired t-tests. In addition, Chi-square tests were performed to evaluate the accuracy of the age estimates within specific time interval from CA. The estimated age difference (CA-DA) using the French Canadian RDS was - 0.62 years for males and - 0.36 years for females. For the UK Caucasian RDS, the age difference was 0.25 years for males and 0.23 years for females. The difference observed using the southern Chinese RDS was - 0.02 years for both genders and the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The southern Chinese RDS estimated the age of 80% of subjects within ±12 months range, and 90% of subjects within ±18 months range (p < 0.05) showing it to be more accurate than other datasets. It is concluded that population specific Reference Data Sets improve the accuracy of dental age estimation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 56%
Computer Science 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%

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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,079,758
of 12,885,423 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#146
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,154
of 269,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,885,423 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 288 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 269,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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