| Title |
Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA Network Open, March 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0265 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Schaffter, Diana S. M. Buist, Christoph I. Lee, Yaroslav Nikulin, Dezső Ribli, Yuanfang Guan, William Lotter, Zequn Jie, Hao Du, Sijia Wang, Jiashi Feng, Mengling Feng, Hyo-Eun Kim, Francisco Albiol, Alberto Albiol, Stephen Morrell, Zbigniew Wojna, Mehmet Eren Ahsen, Umar Asif, Antonio Jimeno Yepes, Shivanthan Yohanandan, Simona Rabinovici-Cohen, Darvin Yi, Bruce Hoff, Thomas Yu, Elias Chaibub Neto, Daniel L. Rubin, Peter Lindholm, Laurie R. Margolies, Russell Bailey McBride, Joseph H. Rothstein, Weiva Sieh, Rami Ben-Ari, Stefan Harrer, Andrew Trister, Stephen Friend, Thea Norman, Berkman Sahiner, Fredrik Strand, Justin Guinney, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Lester Mackey, Joyce Cahoon, Li Shen, Jae Ho Sohn, Hari Trivedi, Yiqiu Shen, Ljubomir Buturovic, Jose Costa Pereira, Jaime S. Cardoso, Eduardo Castro, Karl Trygve Kalleberg, Obioma Pelka, Imane Nedjar, Krzysztof J. Geras, Felix Nensa, Ethan Goan, Sven Koitka, Luis Caballero, David D. Cox, Pavitra Krishnaswamy, Gaurav Pandey, Christoph M. Friedrich, Dimitri Perrin, Clinton Fookes, Bibo Shi, Gerard Cardoso Negrie, Michael Kawczynski, Kyunghyun Cho, Can Son Khoo, Joseph Y. Lo, A. Gregory Sorensen, Hwejin Jung |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 | 26 | 43% |
| France | 4 | 7% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 2 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 62% |
| Scientists | 16 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 365 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 365 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 46 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 10% |
| Other | 25 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 5% |
| Other | 43 | 12% |
| Unknown | 161 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 36 | 10% |
| Engineering | 15 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 50 | 14% |
| Unknown | 170 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 217. 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 22 November 2023.
All research outputs
#177,085
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#1,472
of 9,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,605
of 367,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#32
of 345 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 129.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 367,541 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 345 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 91% of its contemporaries.