↓ Skip to main content

Bone Tumor Diagnosis Using a Naïve Bayesian Model of Demographic and Radiographic Features

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, July 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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Bone Tumor Diagnosis Using a Naïve Bayesian Model of Demographic and Radiographic Features
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-0001-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bao H. Do, Curtis Langlotz, Christopher F. Beaulieu

Abstract

Because many bone tumors have a variety of appearances and are uncommon, few radiologists develop sufficient expertise to guide optimal management. Bayesian inference can guide decision-making by computing probabilities of multiple diagnoses to generate a differential. We built and validated a naïve Bayes machine (NBM) that processes 18 demographic and radiographic features. We reviewed over 1664 analog radiographic cases of bone tumors and selected 811 cases (66 diagnoses) for annotation using a quantitative imaging platform. Leave-one-out cross validation was performed. Primary accuracy was defined as the correct pathological diagnosis as the top machine prediction. Differential accuracy was defined as whether the correct pathological diagnosis was within the top three predictions. For the 29 most common diagnoses (710 cases), primary accuracy was 44%, and differential accuracy was 60%. For the top 10 most common diagnoses (478 cases), primary accuracy was 62%, and differential accuracy was 80%. The machine returned relevant diagnoses for the majority of unknown test cases and may be a feasible alternative to machine learning approaches such as deep neural networks or support vector machines that typically require larger training data (our model required a minimum of five samples per diagnosis) and are "black boxes" (our model can provide details of probability calculations to identify features that most significantly contribute to truth diagnoses). Finally, our Bayes model was designed to scale and "learn" from external data, enabling incorporation of outside knowledge such as Dahlin's Bone Tumors, a reference of anatomic and demographic statistics of more than 10,000 tumors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 29%
Computer Science 8 14%
Engineering 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 21 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,814,140
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#124
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,413
of 317,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#4
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 317,332 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.