↓ Skip to main content

Objective comparison of particle tracking methods

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Methods, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
patent
14 patents
googleplus
2 Google+ users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
1381 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Objective comparison of particle tracking methods
Published in
Nature Methods, January 2014
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.2808
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Particle tracking is of key importance for quantitative analysis of intracellular dynamic processes from time-lapse microscopy image data. Because manually detecting and following large numbers of individual particles is not feasible, automated computational methods have been developed for these tasks by many groups. Aiming to perform an objective comparison of methods, we gathered the community and organized an open competition in which participating teams applied their own methods independently to a commonly defined data set including diverse scenarios. Performance was assessed using commonly defined measures. Although no single method performed best across all scenarios, the results revealed clear differences between the various approaches, leading to notable practical conclusions for users and developers.

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 profiles of 23 X users 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 1,381 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 %
Germany 15 1%
United Kingdom 12 <1%
United States 10 <1%
France 6 <1%
Portugal 4 <1%
Switzerland 4 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Other 15 1%
Unknown 1307 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 415 30%
Researcher 248 18%
Student > Master 156 11%
Student > Bachelor 91 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 80 6%
Other 191 14%
Unknown 200 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 290 21%
Physics and Astronomy 194 14%
Engineering 187 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 155 11%
Chemistry 89 6%
Other 240 17%
Unknown 226 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. 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 10 September 2025.
All research outputs
#542,650
of 32,500,654 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#601
of 6,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,726
of 360,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#9
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,500,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 360,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.