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 |
Cervicovaginal cytology in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy using the Focalpoint system: results from the RODEO study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13000-014-0231-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maíra Degiovani Stein, José Humberto T G Fregnani, Cristovam Scapulatempo-Neto, Adhemar Longatto-Filho |
| Abstract |
BackgroundEvaluate the performance of the Focalpoint system in identifying and classifying cervical cytology alterations from samples collected from patients treated with Radiotherapy (RT).MethodsThe reproducibility of manual and automated screening by cytotechnologists using the BD Focalpoint GS Imaging System was examined. Samples were collected from May 2010 to August 2011.ResultsA total of 378 treated with RT and 8,967 cytology samples from patients without previous RT, were evaluated. The kappa values for cytological diagnoses read manually and automated in cases without previous RT were as follows: < ASC-H vs. ¿ ASC-H¿=¿0.71; < LSIL vs. ¿ LSIL¿=¿0.66; and¿<¿HSIL vs. ¿ HSIL¿=¿0.67. The kappa for cytological diagnoses in post-RT women have showed: < ASC-H vs. ¿ ASC-H¿=¿0.71; < LSIL vs. ¿ LSIL¿=¿0.65; < HSIL vs. ¿ HSIL¿=¿0.57.ConclusionsThere was no significant difference among the kappa values we found. Post-RT cytology showed small diagnostic agreement between manual and automated examination.Virtual SlidesThe virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_231. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 39% |
| Psychology | 3 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
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 17 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,714,383
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#671
of 1,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,149
of 352,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 352,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.