↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies

Overview of attention for article published in Placenta, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.
Title
Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies
Published in
Placenta, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexa A. Freedman, Lauren M. Kipling, Katie Labgold, Carmen J. Marsit, Carol J. Hogue, Augustine Rajakumar, Alicia K. Smith, Halit Pinar, Deborah L. Conway, Radek Bukowski, Michael W. Varner, Robert L. Goldenberg, Donald J. Dudley, Carolyn Drews-Botsch

Abstract

Placental surface area is often estimated using diameter measurements. However, as many placentas are not elliptical, we were interested in the validity of these estimates. We compared placental surface area from images for 491 singletons from the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network (SCRN) Study (416 live births, 75 stillbirths) to estimates obtained using diameter measurements. Placental images and diameters were obtained from pathologic assessments conducted for the SCRN Study and images were analyzed using ImageJ software. On average, diameter-based measures underestimated surface area by -5.58% (95% confidence interval: -30.23, 19.07); results were consistent for normal and abnormal shapes. The association between surface area and birthweight was similar for both measures. Thus, diameter-based surface area can be used to estimate placental surface area.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 21%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Librarian 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
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 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Placenta
#1,469
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,123
of 341,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Placenta
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 341,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.