↓ Skip to main content

Automated quantification of steatosis: agreement with stereological point counting

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
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.
Title
Automated quantification of steatosis: agreement with stereological point counting
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13000-017-0671-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Homeyer, Patrik Nasr, Christiane Engel, Stergios Kechagias, Peter Lundberg, Mattias Ekstedt, Henning Kost, Nick Weiss, Tim Palmer, Horst Karl Hahn, Darren Treanor, Claes Lundström

Abstract

Steatosis is routinely assessed histologically in clinical practice and research. Automated image analysis can reduce the effort of quantifying steatosis. Since reproducibility is essential for practical use, we have evaluated different analysis methods in terms of their agreement with stereological point counting (SPC) performed by a hepatologist. The evaluation was based on a large and representative data set of 970 histological images from human patients with different liver diseases. Three of the evaluated methods were built on previously published approaches. One method incorporated a new approach to improve the robustness to image variability. The new method showed the strongest agreement with the expert. At 20× resolution, it reproduced steatosis area fractions with a mean absolute error of 0.011 for absent or mild steatosis and 0.036 for moderate or severe steatosis. At 10× resolution, it was more accurate than and twice as fast as all other methods at 20× resolution. When compared with SPC performed by two additional human observers, its error was substantially lower than one and only slightly above the other observer. The results suggest that the new method can be a suitable automated replacement for SPC. Before further improvements can be verified, it is necessary to thoroughly assess the variability of SPC between human observers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 29%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Computer Science 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,204,690
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#211
of 1,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,220
of 326,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,135 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 326,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.