↓ Skip to main content

A novel mesh processing based technique for 3D plant analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Plant Biology, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
196 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 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
A novel mesh processing based technique for 3D plant analysis
Published in
BMC Plant Biology, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2229-12-63
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Paproki, Xavier Sirault, Scott Berry, Robert Furbank, Jurgen Fripp

Abstract

In recent years, imaging based, automated, non-invasive, and non-destructive high-throughput plant phenotyping platforms have become popular tools for plant biology, underpinning the field of plant phenomics. Such platforms acquire and record large amounts of raw data that must be accurately and robustly calibrated, reconstructed, and analysed, requiring the development of sophisticated image understanding and quantification algorithms. The raw data can be processed in different ways, and the past few years have seen the emergence of two main approaches: 2D image processing and 3D mesh processing algorithms. Direct image quantification methods (usually 2D) dominate the current literature due to comparative simplicity. However, 3D mesh analysis provides the tremendous potential to accurately estimate specific morphological features cross-sectionally and monitor them over-time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Belgium 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 195 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 20%
Student > Master 22 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 41 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 95 45%
Computer Science 32 15%
Engineering 10 5%
Environmental Science 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 53 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,434,044
of 25,476,463 outputs
Outputs from BMC Plant Biology
#398
of 3,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,316
of 176,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Plant Biology
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,476,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 176,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.