↓ Skip to main content

Deep learning fully convolution network for lumen characterization in diabetic patients using carotid ultrasound: a tool for stroke risk

Overview of attention for article published in Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Deep learning fully convolution network for lumen characterization in diabetic patients using carotid ultrasound: a tool for stroke risk
Published in
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11517-018-1897-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mainak Biswas, Venkatanareshbabu Kuppili, Luca Saba, Damodar Reddy Edla, Harman S. Suri, Aditya Sharma, Elisa Cuadrado-Godia, John R. Laird, Andrew Nicolaides, Jasjit S. Suri

Abstract

Manual ultrasound (US)-based methods are adapted for lumen diameter (LD) measurement to estimate the risk of stroke but they are tedious, error prone, and subjective causing variability. We propose an automated deep learning (DL)-based system for lumen detection. The system consists of a combination of two DL systems: encoder and decoder for lumen segmentation. The encoder employs a 13-layer convolution neural network model (CNN) for rich feature extraction. The decoder employs three up-sample layers of fully convolution network (FCN) for lumen segmentation. Three sets of manual tracings were used during the training paradigm leading to the design of three DL systems. Cross-validation protocol was implemented for all three DL systems. Using the polyline distance metric, the precision of merit for three DL systems over 407 US scans was 99.61%, 97.75%, and 99.89%, respectively. The Jaccard index and Dice similarity of DL lumen segmented region against three ground truth (GT) regions were 0.94, 0.94, and 0.93 and 0.97, 0.97, and 0.97, respectively. The corresponding AUC for three DL systems was 0.95, 0.91, and 0.93. The experimental results demonstrated superior performance of proposed deep learning system over conventional methods in literature. Graphical abstract ᅟ.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 30 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Engineering 10 13%
Computer Science 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 34 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 May 2019.
All research outputs
#19,954,338
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
#1,796
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,966
of 351,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 351,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.