↓ Skip to main content

Consistency and Standardization of Color in Medical Imaging: a Consensus Report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Consistency and Standardization of Color in Medical Imaging: a Consensus Report
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10278-014-9721-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aldo Badano, Craig Revie, Andrew Casertano, Wei-Chung Cheng, Phil Green, Tom Kimpe, Elizabeth Krupinski, Christye Sisson, Stein Skrøvseth, Darren Treanor, Paul Boynton, David Clunie, Michael J. Flynn, Tatsuo Heki, Stephen Hewitt, Hiroyuki Homma, Andy Masia, Takashi Matsui, Balázs Nagy, Masahiro Nishibori, John Penczek, Thomas Schopf, Yukako Yagi, Hideto Yokoi

Abstract

This article summarizes the consensus reached at the Summit on Color in Medical Imaging held at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on May 8-9, 2013, co-sponsored by the FDA and ICC (International Color Consortium). The purpose of the meeting was to gather information on how color is currently handled by medical imaging systems to identify areas where there is a need for improvement, to define objective requirements, and to facilitate consensus development of best practices. Participants were asked to identify areas of concern and unmet needs. This summary documents the topics that were discussed at the meeting and recommendations that were made by the participants. Key areas identified where improvements in color would provide immediate tangible benefits were those of digital microscopy, telemedicine, medical photography (particularly ophthalmic and dental photography), and display calibration. Work in these and other related areas has been started within several professional groups, including the creation of the ICC Medical Imaging Working Group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 12 9%
Other 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 33 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 26%
Engineering 21 16%
Computer Science 11 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Physics and Astronomy 5 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 37 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,093,078
of 24,857,051 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#87
of 1,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,598
of 231,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,857,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,120 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 231,488 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.