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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Development of Raman microspectroscopy for automated detection and imaging of basal cell carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biomedical Optics, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1117/1.3251053 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta Larraona-Puy, Adrian Ghita, Alina Zoladek, William Perkins, Sandeep Varma, Iain H. Leach, Alexey A. Koloydenko, Hywel Williams, Ioan Notingher |
| Abstract |
We investigate the potential of Raman microspectroscopy (RMS) for automated evaluation of excised skin tissue during Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). The main aim is to develop an automated method for imaging and diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) regions. Selected Raman bands responsible for the largest spectral differences between BCC and normal skin regions and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) are used to build a multivariate supervised classification model. The model is based on 329 Raman spectra measured on skin tissue obtained from 20 patients. BCC is discriminated from healthy tissue with 90+/-9% sensitivity and 85+/-9% specificity in a 70% to 30% split cross-validation algorithm. This multivariate model is then applied on tissue sections from new patients to image tumor regions. The RMS images show excellent correlation with the gold standard of histopathology sections, BCC being detected in all positive sections. We demonstrate the potential of RMS as an automated objective method for tumor evaluation during MMS. The replacement of current histopathology during MMS by a "generalization" of the proposed technique may improve the feasibility and efficacy of MMS, leading to a wider use according to clinical need. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 31% |
| Researcher | 22 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 17 | 20% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 14 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,415,054
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Optics
#194
of 2,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,293
of 183,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Optics
#4
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 183,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.