↓ Skip to main content

The power-proportion method for intracranial volume correction in volumetric imaging analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
The power-proportion method for intracranial volume correction in volumetric imaging analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00356
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In volumetric brain imaging analysis, volumes of brain structures are typically assumed to be proportional or linearly related to intracranial volume (ICV). However, evidence abounds that many brain structures have power law relationships with ICV. To take this relationship into account in volumetric imaging analysis, we propose a power law based method-the power-proportion method-for ICV correction. The performance of the new method is demonstrated using data from the PREDICT-HD study.

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 4 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 48 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 States 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 45 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 29%
Neuroscience 7 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,826,483
of 29,108,432 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,919
of 12,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,187
of 282,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#78
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,108,432 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 282,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.