↓ Skip to main content

Pituitary Adenoma Volumetry with 3D Slicer

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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.
Title
Pituitary Adenoma Volumetry with 3D Slicer
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0051788
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Egger, Tina Kapur, Christopher Nimsky, Ron Kikinis

Abstract

In this study, we present pituitary adenoma volumetry using the free and open source medical image computing platform for biomedical research: (3D) Slicer. Volumetric changes in cerebral pathologies like pituitary adenomas are a critical factor in treatment decisions by physicians and in general the volume is acquired manually. Therefore, manual slice-by-slice segmentations in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, which have been obtained at regular intervals, are performed. In contrast to this manual time consuming slice-by-slice segmentation process Slicer is an alternative which can be significantly faster and less user intensive. In this contribution, we compare pure manual segmentations of ten pituitary adenomas with semi-automatic segmentations under Slicer. Thus, physicians drew the boundaries completely manually on a slice-by-slice basis and performed a Slicer-enhanced segmentation using the competitive region-growing based module of Slicer named GrowCut. Results showed that the time and user effort required for GrowCut-based segmentations were on average about thirty percent less than the pure manual segmentations. Furthermore, we calculated the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) between the manual and the Slicer-based segmentations to proof that the two are comparable yielding an average DSC of 81.97±3.39%.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Ukraine 1 1%
Unknown 65 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 20 28%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 45%
Engineering 6 8%
Computer Science 5 7%
Physics and Astronomy 5 7%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 12 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 October 2013.
All research outputs
#13,698,262
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#110,844
of 193,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,027
of 278,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,496
of 4,852 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 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 193,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 278,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,852 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.