↓ Skip to main content

Focused scores enable reliable discrimination of small differences in steatosis

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Focused scores enable reliable discrimination of small differences in steatosis
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13000-018-0753-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Homeyer, Seddik Hammad, Lars Ole Schwen, Uta Dahmen, Henning Höfener, Yan Gao, Steven Dooley, Andrea Schenk

Abstract

Automated image analysis enables quantitative measurement of steatosis in histological images. However, spatial heterogeneity of steatosis can make quantitative steatosis scores unreliable. To improve the reliability, we have developed novel scores that are "focused" on steatotic tissue areas. Focused scores use concepts of tile-based hotspot analysis in order to compute statistics about steatotic tissue areas in an objective way. We evaluated focused scores on three data sets of images of rodent liver sections exhibiting different amounts of dietary-induced steatosis. The same evaluation was conducted with the standard steatosis score computed by most image analysis methods. The standard score reliably discriminated large differences in steatosis (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC = 0.86), but failed to discriminate small (ICC = 0.54) and very small (ICC = 0.14) differences. With an appropriate tile size, mean-based focused scores reliably discriminated large (ICC = 0.92), small (ICC = 0.86) and very small (ICC = 0.83) differences. Focused scores based on high percentiles showed promise in further improving the discrimination of very small differences (ICC = 0.93). Focused scores enable reliable discrimination of small differences in steatosis in histological images. They are conceptually simple and straightforward to use in research studies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 20%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Computer Science 2 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,545,785
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#544
of 1,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,938
of 342,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,140 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 342,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 50% of its contemporaries.