↓ Skip to main content

Medical Image Data and Datasets in the Era of Machine Learning—Whitepaper from the 2016 C-MIMI Meeting Dataset Session

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Medical Image Data and Datasets in the Era of Machine Learning—Whitepaper from the 2016 C-MIMI Meeting Dataset Session
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-9976-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc D. Kohli, Ronald M. Summers, J. Raymond Geis

Abstract

At the first annual Conference on Machine Intelligence in Medical Imaging (C-MIMI), held in September 2016, a conference session on medical image data and datasets for machine learning identified multiple issues. The common theme from attendees was that everyone participating in medical image evaluation with machine learning is data starved. There is an urgent need to find better ways to collect, annotate, and reuse medical imaging data. Unique domain issues with medical image datasets require further study, development, and dissemination of best practices and standards, and a coordinated effort among medical imaging domain experts, medical imaging informaticists, government and industry data scientists, and interested commercial, academic, and government entities. High-level attributes of reusable medical image datasets suitable to train, test, validate, verify, and regulate ML products should be better described. NIH and other government agencies should promote and, where applicable, enforce, access to medical image datasets. We should improve communication among medical imaging domain experts, medical imaging informaticists, academic clinical and basic science researchers, government and industry data scientists, and interested commercial entities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 240 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 19%
Student > Master 31 13%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Other 13 5%
Other 46 19%
Unknown 65 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 48 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 19%
Engineering 26 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 83 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,140,287
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#130
of 1,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,379
of 313,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,058 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 313,760 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 60% of its contemporaries.