Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Automated localisation of the optic disc, fovea, and retinal blood vessels from digital colour fundus images
1999580 citationsChanjira Sinthanayothin, J.F. Boyce et al.British Journal of Ophthalmologyprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of J.F. Boyce's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by J.F. Boyce with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites J.F. Boyce more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by J.F. Boyce. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by J.F. Boyce. The network helps show where J.F. Boyce may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of J.F. Boyce
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of J.F. Boyce.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of J.F. Boyce based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with J.F. Boyce. J.F. Boyce is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Pelosini, Lucia, et al.. (2008). The Assessment of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) as a Predictor of Visual Acuity in Diabetic Macular Oedema. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 49(13). 4236–4236.1 indexed citations
Usher, David, et al.. (2004). Accurate Retinal Blood Vessel Segmentation by Using Multi-Resolution Matched Filtering and Directional Region Growing. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. 87(1). 155–163.3 indexed citations
Hodges, K. V. & J.F. Boyce. (2003). Laser-Ablation (U-Th)/He Geochronology. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2003.3 indexed citations
12.
Usher, David, et al.. (2002). Retinal blood vessel extraction by using multi-resolution matched filtering and directional region growing segmentation. 244–247.3 indexed citations
13.
Usher, David, et al.. (2001). The automated diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy.. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 42(4).1 indexed citations
Papliński, Andrew P. & J.F. Boyce. (1999). Application of an Anisotropic Diffusion Equation in Processing a Class of Ophthalmological Images. 33–39.1 indexed citations
16.
Sinthanayothin, Chanjira, J.F. Boyce, Helen Cook, & Tom H. Williamson. (1999). Automated localisation of the optic disc, fovea, and retinal blood vessels from digital colour fundus images. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 83(8). 902–910.580 indexed citations breakdown →
Papliński, Andrew P. & J.F. Boyce. (1997). Co-occurrence arrays and edge density in segmentation of a class of ophthalmological images. 521–528.1 indexed citations
19.
Boyce, J.F., et al.. (1992). Moving object tracking using camera motion corrected Kalman filtering. International Conference on Image Processing. 81–84.
20.
Haddon, J.F. & J.F. Boyce. (1989). Simultaneous image segmentation and edge detection. International Conference on Image Processing. 411–415.2 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.