↓ Skip to main content

Performance of single and multi-atlas based automated landmarking methods compared to expert annotations in volumetric microCT datasets of mouse mandibles

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Zoology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Performance of single and multi-atlas based automated landmarking methods compared to expert annotations in volumetric microCT datasets of mouse mandibles
Published in
Frontiers in Zoology, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12983-015-0127-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan Young, A. Murat Maga

Abstract

Here we present an application of advanced registration and atlas building framework DRAMMS to the automated annotation of mouse mandibles through a series of tests using single and multi-atlas segmentation paradigms and compare the outcomes to the current gold standard, manual annotation. Our results showed multi-atlas annotation procedure yields landmark precisions within the human observer error range. The mean shape estimates from gold standard and multi-atlas annotation procedure were statistically indistinguishable for both Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (mean form matrix) and Generalized Procrustes Analysis (Goodall F-test). Further research needs to be done to validate the consistency of variance-covariance matrix estimates from both methods with larger sample sizes. Multi-atlas annotation procedure shows promise as a framework to facilitate truly high-throughput phenomic analyses by channeling investigators efforts to annotate only a small portion of their datasets.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 4%
France 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 63%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 19%
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 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
#17,778,101
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#548
of 651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,332
of 387,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 387,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.