↓ Skip to main content

Computer-aided diagnosis for (123I)FP-CIT imaging: impact on clinical reporting

Overview of attention for article published in EJNMMI Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Computer-aided diagnosis for (123I)FP-CIT imaging: impact on clinical reporting
Published in
EJNMMI Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13550-018-0393-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Christopher Taylor, Charles Romanowski, Eleanor Lorenz, Christine Lo, Oliver Bandmann, John Fenner

Abstract

For (123I)FP-CIT imaging, a number of algorithms have shown high performance in distinguishing normal patient images from those with disease, but none have yet been tested as part of reporting workflows. This study aims to evaluate the impact on reporters' performance of a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) tool developed from established machine learning technology. Three experienced (123I)FP-CIT reporters (two radiologists and one clinical scientist) were asked to visually score 155 reconstructed clinical and research images on a 5-point diagnostic confidence scale (read 1). Once completed, the process was then repeated (read 2). Immediately after submitting each image score for a second time, the CADx system output was displayed to reporters alongside the image data. With this information available, the reporters submitted a score for the third time (read 3). Comparisons between reads 1 and 2 provided evidence of intra-operator reliability, and differences between reads 2 and 3 showed the impact of the CADx. The performance of all reporters demonstrated a degree of variability when analysing images through visual analysis alone. However, inclusion of CADx improved consistency between reporters, for both clinical and research data. The introduction of CADx increased the accuracy of the radiologists when reporting (unfamiliar) research images but had less impact on the clinical scientist and caused no significant change in accuracy for the clinical data. The outcomes for this study indicate the value of CADx as a diagnostic aid in the clinic and encourage future development for more refined incorporation into clinical practice.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Computer Science 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,606,163
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#344
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,933
of 327,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 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 564 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 327,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.