↓ Skip to main content

Using a Structural Root System Model to Evaluate and Improve the Accuracy of Root Image Analysis Pipelines

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
61 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Using a Structural Root System Model to Evaluate and Improve the Accuracy of Root Image Analysis Pipelines
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.00447
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guillaume Lobet, Iko T. Koevoets, Manuel Noll, Patrick E. Meyer, Pierre Tocquin, Loïc Pagès, Claire Périlleux

Abstract

Root system analysis is a complex task, often performed with fully automated image analysis pipelines. However, the outcome is rarely verified by ground-truth data, which might lead to underestimated biases. We have used a root model, ArchiSimple, to create a large and diverse library of ground-truth root system images (10,000). For each image, three levels of noise were created. This library was used to evaluate the accuracy and usefulness of several image descriptors classically used in root image analysis softwares. Our analysis highlighted that the accuracy of the different traits is strongly dependent on the quality of the images and the type, size, and complexity of the root systems analyzed. Our study also demonstrated that machine learning algorithms can be trained on a synthetic library to improve the estimation of several root system traits. Overall, our analysis is a call to caution when using automatic root image analysis tools. If a thorough calibration is not performed on the dataset of interest, unexpected errors might arise, especially for large and complex root images. To facilitate such calibration, both the image library and the different codes used in the study have been made available to the community.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 40%
Computer Science 5 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 26 February 2023.
All research outputs
#896,394
of 25,368,786 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#229
of 24,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,366
of 323,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#6
of 549 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,368,786 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,590 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 323,615 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 549 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 99% of its contemporaries.