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 |
MINC 2.0: A Flexible Format for Multi-Modal Images
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fninf.2016.00035 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert D. Vincent, Peter Neelin, Najmeh Khalili-Mahani, Andrew L. Janke, Vladimir S. Fonov, Steven M. Robbins, Leila Baghdadi, Jason Lerch, John G. Sled, Reza Adalat, David MacDonald, Alex P. Zijdenbos, D. Louis Collins, Alan C. Evans |
| Abstract |
It is often useful that an imaging data format can afford rich metadata, be flexible, scale to very large file sizes, support multi-modal data, and have strong inbuilt mechanisms for data provenance. Beginning in 1992, MINC was developed as a system for flexible, self-documenting representation of neuroscientific imaging data with arbitrary orientation and dimensionality. The MINC system incorporates three broad components: a file format specification, a programming library, and a growing set of tools. In the early 2000's the MINC developers created MINC 2.0, which added support for 64-bit file sizes, internal compression, and a number of other modern features. Because of its extensible design, it has been easy to incorporate details of provenance in the header metadata, including an explicit processing history, unique identifiers, and vendor-specific scanner settings. This makes MINC ideal for use in large scale imaging studies and databases. It also makes it easy to adapt to new scanning sequences and modalities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 27% |
| Researcher | 12 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 15 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 13% |
| Engineering | 6 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 12% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,858,030
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#518
of 751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,222
of 355,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 355,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.