↓ Skip to main content

Automated prostate tissue referencing for cancer detection and diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Automated prostate tissue referencing for cancer detection and diagnosis
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1086-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jin Tae Kwak, Stephen M. Hewitt, André Alexander Kajdacsy-Balla, Saurabh Sinha, Rohit Bhargava

Abstract

The current practice of histopathology review is limited in speed and accuracy. The current diagnostic paradigm does not fully describe the complex and complicated patterns of cancer. To address these needs, we develop an automated and objective system that facilitates a comprehensive and easy information management and decision-making. We also develop a tissue similarity measure scheme to broaden our understanding of tissue characteristics. The system includes a database of previously evaluated prostate tissue images, clinical information and a tissue retrieval process. In the system, a tissue is characterized by its morphology. The retrieval process seeks to find the closest matching cases with the tissue of interest. Moreover, we define 9 morphologic criteria by which a pathologist arrives at a histomorphologic diagnosis. Based on the 9 criteria, true tissue similarity is determined and serves as the gold standard of tissue retrieval. Here, we found a minimum of 4 and 3 matching cases, out of 5, for ~80 % and ~60 % of the queries when a match was defined as the tissue similarity score ≥5 and ≥6, respectively. We were also able to examine the relationship between tissues beyond the Gleason grading system due to the tissue similarity scoring system. Providing the closest matching cases and their clinical information with pathologists will help to conduct consistent and reliable diagnoses. Thus, we expect the system to facilitate quality maintenance and quality improvement of cancer pathology.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 26%
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 15 26%
Engineering 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Physics and Astronomy 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 21%
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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,461,618
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,330
of 7,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,747
of 339,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#78
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 339,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.