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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Diagnosing Pathological Prognostic Factors in Retinoblastoma: Correlation between Traditional Microscopy and Digital Slides
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ocular Oncology and Pathology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000381155 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pablo Zoroquiain, Patrick Logan, Vasco Bravo-Filho, Natalia Vila, Samir Jabbour, Maria Eugenia Orellana, Miguel N. Burnier |
| Abstract |
It was the aim of this study to determine the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk prognostic factors and morphological characteristics of retinoblastomas using digital whole slide images (WSI) generated by a scanner. Forty-seven H&E sections of glass slides with high-risk morphological features of retinoblastoma were analyzed. Slides were scanned as WSI and reviewed. The results were compared with those obtained after reviewing the slides using a regular microscope as the gold standard. McNemar's test (MT), the percentage of agreement (POA), and sensitivity (S) and specificity (Sp) were evaluated between WSI and conventional microscopy. There were no differences with respect to multicentricity, growth type, rosette formation, choroidal invasion, anterior chamber invasion, extraocular extension, scleral extension, optic nerve invasion, necrosis, or Azzopardi effect between WSI analysis and light microscopy (MT, p = 1.0; POA = 100%; S = 100%, and Sp = 100%). Discordance was found in 1 case where calcification could not be found using WSI (MT, p = 1.00; POA = 97.9%; S = 100%, and Sp = 97.8%). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report using digital pathology (WSI) to evaluate prognostic factors in eyes containing retinoblastomas. Using WSI, the pathologist was able to detect high-risk morphological features in retinoblastoma. To date, WSI is an important tool, in particular for ophthalmic pathologists examining enucleation and exenteration specimens. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,271,607
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Ocular Oncology and Pathology
#160
of 232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,674
of 264,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ocular Oncology and Pathology
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 232 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 264,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.