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 |
Computer Vision Malaria Diagnostic Systems—Progress and Prospects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00219 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joseph Joel Pollak, Arnon Houri-Yafin, Seth J. Salpeter |
| Abstract |
Accurate malaria diagnosis is critical to prevent malaria fatalities, curb overuse of antimalarial drugs, and promote appropriate management of other causes of fever. While several diagnostic tests exist, the need for a rapid and highly accurate malaria assay remains. Microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests are the main diagnostic modalities available, yet they can demonstrate poor performance and accuracy. Automated microscopy platforms have the potential to significantly improve and standardize malaria diagnosis. Based on image recognition and machine learning algorithms, these systems maintain the benefits of light microscopy and provide improvements such as quicker scanning time, greater scanning area, and increased consistency brought by automation. While these applications have been in development for over a decade, recently several commercial platforms have emerged. In this review, we discuss the most advanced computer vision malaria diagnostic technologies and investigate several of their features which are central to field use. Additionally, we discuss the technological and policy barriers to implementing these technologies in low-resource settings world-wide. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,477,045
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,634
of 10,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,207
of 317,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#68
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 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 10,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 317,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.