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 |
Increasing Navigation Speed at Endoluminal CT Colonography Reduces Colonic Visualization and Polyp Identification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1148/radiol.2017162037 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew A. Plumb, Peter Phillips, Graeme Spence, Susan Mallett, Stuart A. Taylor, Steve Halligan, Thomas Fanshawe |
| Abstract |
Purpose To investigate the effect of increasing navigation speed on the visual search and decision making during polyp identification for computed tomography (CT) colonography Materials and Methods Institutional review board permission was obtained to use deidentified CT colonography data for this prospective reader study. After obtaining informed consent from the readers, 12 CT colonography fly-through examinations that depicted eight polyps were presented at four different fixed navigation speeds to 23 radiologists. Speeds ranged from 1 cm/sec to 4.5 cm/sec. Gaze position was tracked by using an infrared eye tracker, and readers indicated that they saw a polyp by clicking a mouse. Patterns of searching and decision making by speed were investigated graphically and by multilevel modeling. Results Readers identified polyps correctly in 56 of 77 (72.7%) of viewings at the slowest speed but in only 137 of 225 (60.9%) of viewings at the fastest speed (P = .004). They also identified fewer false-positive features at faster speeds (42 of 115; 36.5%) of videos at slowest speed, 89 of 345 (25.8%) at fastest, P = .02). Gaze location was highly concentrated toward the central quarter of the screen area at faster speeds (mean gaze points at slowest speed vs fastest speed, 86% vs 97%, respectively). Conclusion Faster navigation speed at endoluminal CT colonography led to progressive restriction of visual search patterns. Greater speed also reduced both true-positive and false-positive colorectal polyp identification. (©) RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article. |
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 | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,742,933
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Radiology
#8,474
of 10,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,650
of 321,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiology
#56
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 321,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.