↓ Skip to main content

Automated Segmentation of Skin Strata in Reflectance Confocal Microscopy Depth Stacks

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 Segmentation of Skin Strata in Reflectance Confocal Microscopy Depth Stacks
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0153208
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel C. Hames, Marco Ardigò, H. Peter Soyer, Andrew P. Bradley, Tarl W. Prow

Abstract

Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a powerful tool for in-vivo examination of a variety of skin diseases. However, current use of RCM depends on qualitative examination by a human expert to look for specific features in the different strata of the skin. Developing approaches to quantify features in RCM imagery requires an automated understanding of what anatomical strata is present in a given en-face section. This work presents an automated approach using a bag of features approach to represent en-face sections and a logistic regression classifier to classify sections into one of four classes (stratum corneum, viable epidermis, dermal-epidermal junction and papillary dermis). This approach was developed and tested using a dataset of 308 depth stacks from 54 volunteers in two age groups (20-30 and 50-70 years of age). The classification accuracy on the test set was 85.6%. The mean absolute error in determining the interface depth for each of the stratum corneum/viable epidermis, viable epidermis/dermal-epidermal junction and dermal-epidermal junction/papillary dermis interfaces were 3.1 μm, 6.0 μm and 5.5 μm respectively. The probabilities predicted by the classifier in the test set showed that the classifier learned an effective model of the anatomy of human skin.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Other 3 10%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Computer Science 4 13%
Engineering 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,258,962
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#116,842
of 195,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,980
of 299,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,897
of 5,088 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,011 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 299,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,088 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.