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 |
Reliability of 3D laser-based anthropometry and comparison with classical anthropometry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep26672 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Kuehnapfel, Peter Ahnert, Markus Loeffler, Anja Broda, Markus Scholz |
| Abstract |
Anthropometric quantities are widely used in epidemiologic research as possible confounders, risk factors, or outcomes. 3D laser-based body scans (BS) allow evaluation of dozens of quantities in short time with minimal physical contact between observers and probands. The aim of this study was to compare BS with classical manual anthropometric (CA) assessments with respect to feasibility, reliability, and validity. We performed a study on 108 individuals with multiple measurements of BS and CA to estimate intra- and inter-rater reliabilities for both. We suggested BS equivalents of CA measurements and determined validity of BS considering CA the gold standard. Throughout the study, the overall concordance correlation coefficient (OCCC) was chosen as indicator of agreement. BS was slightly more time consuming but better accepted than CA. For CA, OCCCs for intra- and inter-rater reliability were greater than 0.8 for all nine quantities studied. For BS, 9 of 154 quantities showed reliabilities below 0.7. BS proxies for CA measurements showed good agreement (minimum OCCC > 0.77) after offset correction. Thigh length showed higher reliability in BS while upper arm length showed higher reliability in CA. Except for these issues, reliabilities of CA measurements and their BS equivalents were comparable. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 19% |
| Engineering | 14 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 7% |
| Design | 6 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 28 | 29% |
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 31 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,376,252
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#77,982
of 123,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,149
of 337,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,177
of 3,545 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 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 123,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 337,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,545 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.