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 |
A Proposed Method for Accurate 3D Analysis of Cochlear Implant Migration Using Fusion of Cone Beam CT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guido Dees, Marc van Hoof, Robert Stokroos |
| Abstract |
The goal of this investigation was to compare fusion of sequential cone beam computerized tomography (CT) volumes to the gold standard (fiducial registration) in order to be able to analyze clinical cochlear implant (CI) migration with high accuracy in three dimensions. Paired cone beam CT volumes were performed on five human cadaver temporal bones and one human subject. These volumes were fused using 3D Slicer 4 and BRAINSFit software. Using a gold standard fiducial technique, the accuracy, robustness, and performance time of the fusion process were assessed. This proposed fusion protocol achieves a subvoxel median Euclidean distance of 0.05 mm in human cadaver temporal bones and 0.16 mm (mean) when applied to the described in vivo human synthetic data set in over 95% of all fusions. Performance times are <2 min. Here, a new and validated method based on existing techniques is described, which could be used to accurately quantify migration of CI electrodes. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 18% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 50% |
| Engineering | 3 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,436,183
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#921
of 2,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,972
of 396,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,874 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 396,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.