Assessment of freeware programs for the reconstruction of tomography datasets obtained with a monochromatic synchrotron-based X-ray source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchrotron-based in-line phase-contrast computed tomography (PC-CT) allows soft tissue to be imaged with sub-gross resolution and has potential to be used as a diagnostic tool. The reconstruction and processing of in-line PC-CT datasets is a computationally demanding task; thus, an efficient and user-friendly software program is desirable. Four freeware programs (NRecon, PITRE, H-PITRE and Athabasca Recon) were compared for the availability of features such as dark- and flat-field calibration, beam power normalization, ring artifact removal, and alignment tools for optimizing image quality. An in-line PC-CT projection dataset (3751 projections, 180° rotation, 10.13 mm × 0.54 mm) was collected from a formalin-fixed canine prostate at the Biomedical Imaging and Therapy Bending Magnet (BMIT-BM) beamline of the Canadian Light Source. This dataset was processed with each of the four software programs and usability of the program was evaluated. Efficiency was assessed by how each program maximized computer processing power during computation. Athabasca Recon had the least-efficient memory usage, least user-friendly interface, and lacked a ring artifact removal feature. NRecon, PITRE and H-PITRE produced similar quality images, but the Athabasca Recon reconstruction suffered from the lack of a native ring remover algorithm. The 64-bit version of NRecon uses GPU (graphics processor unit) memory for accelerated processing and is user-friendly, but does not provide necessary parameters for in-line PC-CT data, such as dark-field and flat-field correction and beam power normalization. PITRE has many helpful features and tools, but lacks a comprehensive user manual and help section. H-PITRE is a condensed version of PITRE and maximizes computer memory for efficiency. To conclude, NRecon has fewer imaging processing tools than PITRE and H-PITRE, but is ideal for less experienced users due to a simple user interface. Based on the quality of reconstructed images, efficient use of computer memory and parameter availability, H-PITRE was the preferred of the four programs compared.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".