↓ Skip to main content

Bone age assessment: automated techniques coming of age?

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Radiologica, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 974)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Bone age assessment: automated techniques coming of age?
Published in
Acta Radiologica, December 2016
DOI 10.1258/ar.2012.120443
Pubmed ID
Authors

RR van Rijn, HH Thodberg

Abstract

Bone age determination from hand radiographs is one of the oldest radiographic procedures. The first atlas was published by Poland in 1898, and to date the Greulich Pyle atlas, although it dates from 1959, is still the most commonly used method. Bone age rating is time-consuming, suffers from an unsatisfactorily high rater variability, and therefore already 25 years ago it was proposed to replace the manual rating by an automated, computerized method, a field nowadays referred to as computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). The pursuit of this goal reached a first stage of accomplishment in 1992-1996 with the presentation of several systems. However, they had limited clinical value, and efforts in CAD research were increasingly focused on lesion detection for cancer screening. It was only in 2008 that a fully-automated bone age method was presented, which appears to be clinically acceptable. In this paper we consider the requirements that should be met by an automated bone age method and review the state of the art. Integration in PACS and saving time are important factors for radiologists. But it is the validation of the methods which poses the greatest challenge, because there is no gold standard for bone age rating, and the direct comparison to manual rating is therefore not sufficient for demonstrating that manual rating can be replaced by automated rating. One needs additional studies assessing the precision of a method and its accuracy when used for adult height prediction, which serves as an objective.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
China 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 7%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2013.
All research outputs
#3,767,525
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Acta Radiologica
#40
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,592
of 418,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Radiologica
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 418,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.