| Title |
SimpleITK Image-Analysis Notebooks: a Collaborative Environment for Education and Reproducible Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-017-0037-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ziv Yaniv, Bradley C. Lowekamp, Hans J. Johnson, Richard Beare |
| Abstract |
Modern scientific endeavors increasingly require team collaborations to construct and interpret complex computational workflows. This work describes an image-analysis environment that supports the use of computational tools that facilitate reproducible research and support scientists with varying levels of software development skills. The Jupyter notebook web application is the basis of an environment that enables flexible, well-documented, and reproducible workflows via literate programming. Image-analysis software development is made accessible to scientists with varying levels of programming experience via the use of the SimpleITK toolkit, a simplified interface to the Insight Segmentation and Registration Toolkit. Additional features of the development environment include user friendly data sharing using online data repositories and a testing framework that facilitates code maintenance. SimpleITK provides a large number of examples illustrating educational and research-oriented image analysis workflows for free download from GitHub under an Apache 2.0 license: github.com/InsightSoftwareConsortium/SimpleITK-Notebooks . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 251 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 16% |
| Researcher | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 11% |
| Unknown | 76 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 47 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 37 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 9% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 10 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 40 | 16% |
| Unknown | 86 | 34% |
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 24 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,824,064
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#81
of 1,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,047
of 441,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 1,092 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 441,380 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.