↓ Skip to main content

Transforming Dermatologic Imaging for the Digital Era: Metadata and Standards

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, January 2018
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 (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Transforming Dermatologic Imaging for the Digital Era: Metadata and Standards
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-0045-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liam J. Caffery, David Clunie, Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, Josep Malvehy, H. Peter Soyer, Allan C. Halpern

Abstract

Imaging is increasingly being used in dermatology for documentation, diagnosis, and management of cutaneous disease. The lack of standards for dermatologic imaging is an impediment to clinical uptake. Standardization can occur in image acquisition, terminology, interoperability, and metadata. This paper presents the International Skin Imaging Collaboration position on standardization of metadata for dermatologic imaging. Metadata is essential to ensure that dermatologic images are properly managed and interpreted. There are two standards-based approaches to recording and storing metadata in dermatologic imaging. The first uses standard consumer image file formats, and the second is the file format and metadata model developed for the Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) standard. DICOM would appear to provide an advantage over using consumer image file formats for metadata as it includes all the patient, study, and technical metadata necessary to use images clinically. Whereas, consumer image file formats only include technical metadata and need to be used in conjunction with another actor-for example, an electronic medical record-to supply the patient and study metadata. The use of DICOM may have some ancillary benefits in dermatologic imaging including leveraging DICOM network and workflow services, interoperability of images and metadata, leveraging existing enterprise imaging infrastructure, greater patient safety, and better compliance to legislative requirements for image retention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 31 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 28%
Computer Science 9 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Unspecified 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 32 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,603,263
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#226
of 1,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,991
of 441,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,061 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 441,888 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 73% of its contemporaries.