↓ Skip to main content

A new digital tool for radiographic bone level measurements in longitudinal studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
A new digital tool for radiographic bone level measurements in longitudinal studies
Published in
BMC Oral Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12903-015-0092-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans R Preus, Gerald Ruiner Torgersen, Odd Carsten Koldsland, Bjørn Frode Hansen, Anne Merete Aass, Tore Arne Larheim, Leiv Sandvik

Abstract

The reproducibility of measurements on radiographs is influenced by the techniques by which the images as well as the measurements are obtained. Thus, bias resulting from errors in the image and/or image examinations at two points in time may result in wrongful registrations of true biological or pathological changes. The aim of the present study was to propose and evaluate an indirect radiological examination technique, by which bias, when measuring radiographic bone level, could be substantially reduced as compared to the technique using direct mm measurements. A plugin to ImageJ was designed to reduce bias when measuring bone loss on radiographic images. In human dry mandibles, radiographic images of 20 teeth were obtained parallel with the tooth axis (alpha = 0) and at an angle of 30° deviation. The direct technique of measuring radiographic bone level (RBL) and the indirect, length-adjusted RBL were registered by four researchers in a double blinded fashion. When mean RBL measured at 0° angle was 7.0 mm, the corresponding mean RBL measured at 30° angle was 7.8 mm, signifying an 11.4 % increase (p = 0.032), whereas the mean length-adjusted RBL increased by 0.6 % (p = 0.9). This study showed that the use of the original, direct technique (ImageJ) resulted in markedly biased radiographic bone level at 30° angle, while the proposed indirect length-adjusted technique (ImageJ plugin) did not.

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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 28%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 49%
Unspecified 11 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 15%
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 28 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,427,608
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#995
of 1,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,816
of 267,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#21
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,469 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 267,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.