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 |
Effect of Display Resolution on Time to Diagnosis with Virtual Pathology Slides in a Systematic Search Task
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-014-9726-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca Randell, Thilina Ambepitiya, Claudia Mello-Thoms, Roy A. Ruddle, David Brettle, Rhys G. Thomas, Darren Treanor |
| Abstract |
Performing diagnoses using virtual slides can take pathologists significantly longer than with glass slides, presenting a significant barrier to the use of virtual slides in routine practice. Given the benefits in pathology workflow efficiency and safety that virtual slides promise, it is important to understand reasons for this difference and identify opportunities for improvement. The effect of display resolution on time to diagnosis with virtual slides has not previously been explored. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of display resolution on time to diagnosis with virtual slides. Nine pathologists participated in a counterbalanced crossover study, viewing axillary lymph node slides on a microscope, a 23-in 2.3-megapixel single-screen display and a three-screen 11-megapixel display consisting of three 27-in displays. Time to diagnosis and time to first target were faster on the microscope than on the single and three-screen displays. There was no significant difference between the microscope and the three-screen display in time to first target, while the time taken on the single-screen display was significantly higher than that on the microscope. The results suggest that a digital pathology workstation with an increased number of pixels may make it easier to identify where cancer is located in the initial slide overview, enabling quick location of diagnostically relevant regions of interest. However, when a comprehensive, detailed search of a slide has to be made, increased resolution may not offer any additional benefit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 12% |
| United States | 2 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 12% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 6% |
| Sweden | 1 | 6% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 24% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 25% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 38% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 20 February 2015.
All research outputs
#1,976,245
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#46
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,438
of 209,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 209,866 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 92% of its contemporaries.