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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Development and validation of SCAISS, a tool for semi-automated quantification of sacroilitis by magnetic resonance in spondyloarthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Rheumatology International, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00296-018-4104-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pedro Zarco, Raquel Almodóvar, Ángel Bueno, Luis Miguel Molinero, SCAISS Study Group |
| Abstract |
To develop a semi-automated method to quantify inflammation in sacroiliac (SI) joints by measuring bone marrow edema (BME) on MRI. The SCAISS was designed as an image-processing software. Validation followed: (1) three readers evaluated SI images of 23 patients with axial SpA and various levels of BME severity with the SCAISS, and two non-automated methods, SPARCC and Berlin; (2) 20 readers evaluated 12 patients images, also with the three methods; (3) 203 readers evaluated 12 patient images with the Berlin and the SCAISS. Convergent validity, reliability and feasibility were estimated in the first two steps and reliability was confirmed with the third. The interobserver reliability (ICC and 95% CI) in the three observers' study was similar across methods: SCAISS = 0.770 (0.580-0.889); Berlin = 0.725 (0.537-0.860); and SPARCC = 0.824 (0.671-0.916). In the 20 observers' study, ICC was: SCAISS = 0.801 (0.653-0.927); Berlin = 0.702 (0.518-0.882); and SPARCC = 0.790 (0.623-0.923). In the 203 observers' study, ICC were: SCAISS = 0.810 (0.675-0.930), and Berlin = 0.636 (0.458-0.843). SCAISS showed good convergent validity (r with SPARCC = 0.760). Median time (interquartile range) employed in the reading procedure was 28 (27) seconds for the SCAISS, 14 (9) for the Berlin score, and 94 (68) for the SPARCC. The SCAISS permits a valid, reliable, and fast calculation of overall BME lesion at the SI joint on MRI images not dependent on readers' experience. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 71% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 33% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,081,513
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#593
of 2,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,145
of 329,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#10
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 329,174 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 74% of its contemporaries.