↓ Skip to main content

Simulation and assessment of realistic breast lesions using fractal growth models

Overview of attention for article published in Physics in Medicine & Biology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
39 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.
Article details
Title
Simulation and assessment of realistic breast lesions using fractal growth models
Published in
Physics in Medicine & Biology, July 2013
DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/58/16/5613
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A new method of generating realistic three dimensional simulated breast lesions known as diffusion limited aggregation (DLA) is presented, and compared with the random walk (RW) method. Both methods of lesion simulation utilize a physics-based method for inserting these simulated lesions into 2D clinical mammogram images that takes into account the polychromatic x-ray spectrum, local glandularity and scatter. DLA and RW masses were assessed for realism via a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study with nine observers. The study comprised 150 images of which 50 were real pathology proven mammograms, 50 were normal mammograms with RW inserted masses and 50 were normal mammograms with DLA inserted masses. The average area under the ROC curve for the DLA method was 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.51-0.59) compared to 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.56-0.63) for the RW method. The observer study results suggest that the DLA method produced more realistic masses with more variability in shape compared to the RW method. DLA generated lesions can overcome the lack of complexity in structure and shape in many current methods of mass simulation.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 9 23%
Engineering 6 15%
Computer Science 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 33%
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 29 July 2013.
All research outputs
#24,756,754
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Physics in Medicine & Biology
#5,618
of 7,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,166
of 243,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physics in Medicine & Biology
#61
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,398 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 243,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.