| Title |
SCIFIO: an extensible framework to support scientific image formats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-016-1383-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark C. Hiner, Curtis T. Rueden, Kevin W. Eliceiri |
| Abstract |
No gold standard exists in the world of scientific image acquisition; a proliferation of instruments each with its own proprietary data format has made out-of-the-box sharing of that data nearly impossible. In the field of light microscopy, the Bio-Formats library was designed to translate such proprietary data formats to a common, open-source schema, enabling sharing and reproduction of scientific results. While Bio-Formats has proved successful for microscopy images, the greater scientific community was lacking a domain-independent framework for format translation. SCIFIO (SCientific Image Format Input and Output) is presented as a freely available, open-source library unifying the mechanisms of reading and writing image data. The core of SCIFIO is its modular definition of formats, the design of which clearly outlines the components of image I/O to encourage extensibility, facilitated by the dynamic discovery of the SciJava plugin framework. SCIFIO is structured to support coexistence of multiple domain-specific open exchange formats, such as Bio-Formats' OME-TIFF, within a unified environment. SCIFIO is a freely available software library developed to standardize the process of reading and writing scientific image formats. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 25% |
| Researcher | 11 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 11% |
| Engineering | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
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 18 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,431,277
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,390
of 7,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,304
of 419,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#76
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 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 7,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 419,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.