| Title |
Technical Challenges of Enterprise Imaging: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-016-9899-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David A. Clunie, Don K. Dennison, Dawn Cram, Kenneth R. Persons, Mark D. Bronkalla, Henri “Rik” Primo |
| Abstract |
This white paper explores the technical challenges and solutions for acquiring (capturing) and managing enterprise images, particularly those involving visible light applications. The types of acquisition devices used for various general-purpose photography and specialized applications including dermatology, endoscopy, and anatomic pathology are reviewed. The formats and standards used, and the associated metadata requirements and communication protocols for transfer and workflow are considered. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of metadata capture in both order- and encounter-based workflow. The benefits of using DICOM to provide a standard means of recording and accessing both metadata and image and video data are considered, as is the role of IHE and FHIR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 4 | 57% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 17% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 14 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,209,622
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#59
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,700
of 336,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,052 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 336,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 64% of its contemporaries.