| Title |
The Image-Guided Surgery Toolkit IGSTK: An Open Source C++ Software Toolkit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, August 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-007-9054-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andinet Enquobahrie, Patrick Cheng, Kevin Gary, Luis Ibanez, David Gobbi, Frank Lindseth, Ziv Yaniv, Stephen Aylward, Julien Jomier, Kevin Cleary |
| Abstract |
This paper presents an overview of the image-guided surgery toolkit (IGSTK). IGSTK is an open source C++ software library that provides the basic components needed to develop image-guided surgery applications. It is intended for fast prototyping and development of image-guided surgery applications. The toolkit was developed through a collaboration between academic and industry partners. Because IGSTK was designed for safety-critical applications, the development team has adopted lightweight software processes that emphasizes safety and robustness while, at the same time, supporting geographically separated developers. A software process that is philosophically similar to agile software methods was adopted emphasizing iterative, incremental, and test-driven development principles. The guiding principle in the architecture design of IGSTK is patient safety. The IGSTK team implemented a component-based architecture and used state machine software design methodologies to improve the reliability and safety of the components. Every IGSTK component has a well-defined set of features that are governed by state machines. The state machine ensures that the component is always in a valid state and that all state transitions are valid and meaningful. Realizing that the continued success and viability of an open source toolkit depends on a strong user community, the IGSTK team is following several key strategies to build an active user community. These include maintaining a users and developers' mailing list, providing documentation (application programming interface reference document and book), presenting demonstration applications, and delivering tutorial sessions at relevant scientific conferences. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 21% |
| Researcher | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 17% |
| Professor | 8 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 32 | 32% |
| Engineering | 26 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
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 11 February 2009.
All research outputs
#7,454,298
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#338
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,500
of 67,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 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 67,717 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 11 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.