| Title |
Open Source Software Projects of the caBIG™ In Vivo Imaging Workspace Software Special Interest Group
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, September 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-007-9061-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fred W. Prior, Bradley J. Erickson, Lawrence Tarbox |
| Abstract |
The Cancer Bioinformatics Grid (caBIG) program was created by the National Cancer Institute to facilitate sharing of IT infrastructure, data, and applications among the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer research centers. The program was launched in February 2004 and now links more than 50 cancer centers. In April 2005, the In Vivo Imaging Workspace was added to promote the use of imaging in cancer clinical trials. At the inaugural meeting, four special interest groups (SIGs) were established. The Software SIG was charged with identifying projects that focus on open-source software for image visualization and analysis. To date, two projects have been defined by the Software SIG. The eXtensible Imaging Platform project has produced a rapid application development environment that researchers may use to create targeted workflows customized for specific research projects. The Algorithm Validation Tools project will provide a set of tools and data structures that will be used to capture measurement information and associated needed to allow a gold standard to be defined for the given database against which change analysis algorithms can be tested. Through these and future efforts, the caBIG In Vivo Imaging Workspace Software SIG endeavors to advance imaging informatics and provide new open-source software tools to advance cancer research. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 9% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 24% |
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 10 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 12% |
| Engineering | 4 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 December 2008.
All research outputs
#7,453,350
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#339
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,896
of 69,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 69,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.