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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Semi-automatic analysis of standard uptake values in serial PET/CT studies in patients with lung cancer and lymphoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Imaging, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2342-12-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Ly, Sabine Garpered, Peter Höglund, Eskil Jönsson, Sven Valind, Lars Edenbrandt, Per Wollmer |
| Abstract |
Changes in maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) between serial PET/CT studies are used to determine disease progression or regression in oncologic patients. To measure these changes manually can be time consuming in a clinical routine. A semi-automatic method for calculation of SUVmax in serial PET/CT studies was developed and compared to a conventional manual method. The semi-automatic method first aligns the serial PET/CT studies based on the CT images. Thereafter, the reader selects an abnormal lesion in one of the PET studies. After this manual step, the program automatically detects the corresponding lesion in the other PET study, segments the two lesions and calculates the SUVmax in both studies as well as the difference between the SUVmax values. The results of the semi-automatic analysis were compared to that of a manual SUVmax analysis using a Philips PET/CT workstation. Three readers did the SUVmax readings in both methods. Sixteen patients with lung cancer or lymphoma who had undergone two PET/CT studies were included. There were a total of 26 lesions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 27% |
| Researcher | 5 | 23% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 68% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 August 2012.
All research outputs
#13,013,514
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#140
of 588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,550
of 160,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 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 588 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 160,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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