↓ Skip to main content

Automated Multi-Lesion Detection for Referable Diabetic Retinopathy in Indigenous Health Care

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
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.
Title
Automated Multi-Lesion Detection for Referable Diabetic Retinopathy in Indigenous Health Care
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0127664
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramon Pires, Tiago Carvalho, Geoffrey Spurling, Siome Goldenstein, Jacques Wainer, Alan Luckie, Herbert F. Jelinek, Anderson Rocha

Abstract

Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is a complication of diabetes mellitus that affects more than one-quarter of the population with diabetes, and can lead to blindness if not discovered in time. An automated screening enables the identification of patients who need further medical attention. This study aimed to classify retinal images of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples utilizing an automated computer-based multi-lesion eye screening program for diabetic retinopathy. The multi-lesion classifier was trained on 1,014 images from the São Paulo Eye Hospital and tested on retinal images containing no DR-related lesion, single lesions, or multiple types of lesions from the Inala Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health care centre. The automated multi-lesion classifier has the potential to enhance the efficiency of clinical practice delivering diabetic retinopathy screening. Our program does not necessitate image samples for training from any specific ethnic group or population being assessed and is independent of image pre- or post-processing to identify retinal lesions. In this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, the program achieved 100% sensitivity and 88.9% specificity in identifying bright lesions, while detection of red lesions achieved a sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 95%. When both bright and red lesions were present, 100% sensitivity with 88.9% specificity was obtained. All results obtained with this automated screening program meet WHO standards for diabetic retinopathy screening.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 12 22%
Psychology 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 June 2015.
All research outputs
#12,925,574
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#101,027
of 194,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,601
of 267,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,009
of 6,831 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 267,796 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,831 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 54% of its contemporaries.