2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2014.01.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of quantitative reconstruction techniques for PIXE-tomography analysis applied to biological samples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite these drawbacks, DISRA has remained the most complete reconstruction code designed for STIMT and PIXET and for this reason, has been used and/or modified by several research groups [20,21,22]. To overcome the first two difficulties, a major improvement of the code was proposed (JPIXET) by replacing FBP by a method widely used for SPECT imaging, MLEM (Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization) [23,24]. Moreover Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) parallel computing using CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) programming was implemented to fasten the reconstruction process.…”
Section: First Attempts To Perform Stimt and Pixet Data Fusion Used Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite these drawbacks, DISRA has remained the most complete reconstruction code designed for STIMT and PIXET and for this reason, has been used and/or modified by several research groups [20,21,22]. To overcome the first two difficulties, a major improvement of the code was proposed (JPIXET) by replacing FBP by a method widely used for SPECT imaging, MLEM (Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization) [23,24]. Moreover Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) parallel computing using CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) programming was implemented to fasten the reconstruction process.…”
Section: First Attempts To Perform Stimt and Pixet Data Fusion Used Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A first attempt to quantify the accuracy of the reconstructed images using Geant4 simulations on numerical phantoms, used as reference data, has been already carried out [15]. A very good agreement was obtained for thin samples (for example a 5 µm cubic phantom) using the two main reconstruction algorithms available in TomoRebuild: i) Filtered Back Projection (FBP), based on the exact analytical solution of the continuous description of the tomography problem; ii) Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization (MLEM), an iterative method based on a discrete formulation of the tomographic process, often used for PIXE tomography as a robust algorithm even with noisy and/or incomplete data [11,29,30]. A good agreement was obtained (< 3%) between PIXE reconstructed and reference density values in the regions of interest.…”
Section: Reconstruction Of Tomographic Imagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…precise determination of each element content, in terms of element density (g•cm -3 ) or concentration (g•g -1 ). A possible way to evaluate the precision of the reconstruction process is to compare the results obtained from the same experimental data sets, using different data reduction and tomographic reconstruction methods compared to one another [10,11]. In order to quantify in a more direct way the accuracy of the reconstruction, we proposed to use the Geant4 toolkit (http://geant4.org) [12][13][14] as a benchmark and we defined numerical phantoms for this purpose [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The trouble with PIXE-T is that it is very damaging, and only rather robust samples can survive the many slices required. 201 We should mention that although simple tomography theory calls for a very large number of slices there are various mathematical ways of dramatically reducing this number and consequently reducing the analysis time (together with sample damage! ), 202 including maximum likelihood methods.…”
Section: Analystmentioning
confidence: 99%