2020
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simple Muscle Architecture Analysis (SMA): An ImageJ macro tool to automate measurements in B-mode ultrasound scans

Abstract: In vivo measurements of muscle architecture (i.e. the spatial arrangement of muscle fascicles) are routinely included in research and clinical settings to monitor muscle structure, function and plasticity. However, in most cases such measurements are performed manually, and more reliable and time-efficient automated methods are either lacking completely, or are inaccessible to those without expertise in image analysis. In this work, we propose an ImageJ script to automate the entire analysis process of muscle … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
60
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
60
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We used an open‐source ImageJ/Fiji 13 plugin to automate muscle architecture analysis 14 . Briefly, the script automates image filtering and the segmentation of aponeuroses and fascicle fragments.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used an open‐source ImageJ/Fiji 13 plugin to automate muscle architecture analysis 14 . Briefly, the script automates image filtering and the segmentation of aponeuroses and fascicle fragments.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Images were analyzed using SMA (Simple Muscle Architecture Analysis) automated algorithm developed by Seynnes and Cronin [21]. The software has been demonstrated to be equally valid to manual segmentation [21]. The ultrasound images which had been recorded during the corresponding five continuous steps determined from the kinematic data were analyzed.…”
Section: Ultrasound Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The overall outcomes of the Tables (3, 4 Table 9 illustrates the average PSNR performance using nine different state-of-the-art algorithms under different noise levels on the 150 test images. In addition, this part compares the execution time and the performance outcomes between the proposed FQPSO-MP algorithm with seven denoising algorithms such as SNLM [32], BM3D [12], BM3D-SAPCA [33], FastNLM [34], FNCSR [35], K-SVD [7], and WNNM [16] to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed FQPSO-MP algorithm in large-scale image verity. We had produced 150image from the BSD500 [25] to guarantee a suitable comparison.…”
Section: Comparison Between the Proposed Fqpso-mp And The State-of-thmentioning
confidence: 99%