↓ Skip to main content

Tissue thickness calculation in ocular optical coherence tomography

Overview of attention for article published in Biomedical Optics Express, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Tissue thickness calculation in ocular optical coherence tomography
Published in
Biomedical Optics Express, January 2016
DOI 10.1364/boe.7.000629
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Thickness measurements derived from optical coherence tomography (OCT) images of the eye are a fundamental clinical and research metric, since they provide valuable information regarding the eye's anatomical and physiological characteristics, and can assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of numerous ocular conditions. Despite the importance of these measurements, limited attention has been given to the methods used to estimate thickness in OCT images of the eye. Most current studies employing OCT use an axial thickness metric, but there is evidence that axial thickness measures may be biased by tilt and curvature of the image. In this paper, standard axial thickness calculations are compared with a variety of alternative metrics for estimating tissue thickness. These methods were tested on a data set of wide-field chorio-retinal OCT scans (field of view (FOV) 60° x 25°) to examine their performance across a wide region of interest and to demonstrate the potential effect of curvature of the posterior segment of the eye on the thickness estimates. Similarly, the effect of image tilt was systematically examined with the same range of proposed metrics. The results demonstrate that image tilt and curvature of the posterior segment can affect axial tissue thickness calculations, while alternative metrics, which are not biased by these effects, should be considered. This study demonstrates the need to consider alternative methods to calculate tissue thickness in order to avoid measurement error due to image tilt and curvature.

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 45 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 %
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Researcher 10 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Computer Science 6 13%
Physics and Astronomy 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 22%
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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Optics Express
#2,033
of 3,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,038
of 403,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Optics Express
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 403,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.