↓ Skip to main content

Clinical applications of textural analysis in non-small cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Radiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
79 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.
Article details
Title
Clinical applications of textural analysis in non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
British Journal of Radiology, October 2017
DOI 10.1259/bjr.20170267
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Treatment pathways include regular cross-sectional imaging, generating large data sets which present intriguing possibilities for exploitation beyond standard visual interpretation. This additional data mining has been termed 'radiomics' and includes semantic and agnostic approaches. Texture Analysis (TA) is an example of the latter, and uses a range of mathematically derived features to describe an image or region of an image. Often TA is used to describe a suspected or known tumour. TA is an attractive tool as large existing image sets can be submitted to diverse techniques for data processing, presentation, interpretation and hypothesis testing with annotated clinical outcomes. There is a growing anthology of published data using different TA techniques to differentiate between benign and malignant lung nodules, differentiate tissue sub-types of lung cancer, prognosticate and predict outcome and treatment response, as well as predict treatment side effects and potentially aid radiotherapy planning. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current published data and understand the potential future role of TA in managing lung cancer.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 39%
Physics and Astronomy 9 11%
Unspecified 4 5%
Computer Science 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 18 23%
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 09 September 2017.
All research outputs
#30,828,080
of 34,020,007 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Radiology
#4,038
of 4,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,310
of 372,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Radiology
#47
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,020,007 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 372,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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.