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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An objective comparison of cell-tracking algorithms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Methods, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nmeth.4473 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vladimír Ulman, Martin Maška, Klas E G Magnusson, Olaf Ronneberger, Carsten Haubold, Nathalie Harder, Pavel Matula, Petr Matula, David Svoboda, Miroslav Radojevic, Ihor Smal, Karl Rohr, Joakim Jaldén, Helen M Blau, Oleh Dzyubachyk, Boudewijn Lelieveldt, Pengdong Xiao, Yuexiang Li, Siu-Yeung Cho, Alexandre C Dufour, Jean-Christophe Olivo-Marin, Constantino C Reyes-Aldasoro, Jose A Solis-Lemus, Robert Bensch, Thomas Brox, Johannes Stegmaier, Ralf Mikut, Steffen Wolf, Fred A Hamprecht, Tiago Esteves, Pedro Quelhas, Ömer Demirel, Lars Malmström, Florian Jug, Pavel Tomancak, Erik Meijering, Arrate Muñoz-Barrutia, Michal Kozubek, Carlos Ortiz-de-Solorzano |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 17 | 17% |
| Germany | 10 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 7% |
| France | 7 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 35 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 58 | 59% |
| Scientists | 37 | 37% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 511 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 511 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 128 | 25% |
| Researcher | 81 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 56 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 5% |
| Other | 61 | 12% |
| Unknown | 120 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 80 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 78 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 65 | 13% |
| Engineering | 63 | 12% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 28 | 5% |
| Other | 63 | 12% |
| Unknown | 134 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. 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 03 January 2023.
All research outputs
#390,561
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#458
of 5,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,194
of 343,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#7
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 5,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 343,695 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.