4.5 Article

Comparison of 2D fiber network orientation measurement methods

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 88A, Issue 2, Pages 322-331

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31847

Keywords

Fourier transform; mean intercept length; line fraction deviation; fiber networks

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [1 R01 EB005813-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mechanical properties of tissues, tissue analogs, and biomaterials are dependent oil their underlying microstructure. As such, many mechanical models incorporate some aspect of microstructure, but a robust protocol for characterizing Fiber architecture remains a challenge. A number of image-based methods, including mean intercept length (MIL), line fraction deviation (LFD), and Fourier transform methods (FTM), have been applied to microstructural images to describe material heterogeneity and orientation, but a performance comparison, particularly for fiber networks, has not been conducted. In this study, we constructed 40 two-dimensional test images composed of simulated fiber networks varying in fiber number, orientation, and anisotropy index. We assessed the accuracy of each method in measuring principal direction (theta) and anisotropy index (alpha). FTM proved to be the superior method because it was more reliable in measurement accuracy (Delta theta = 2.95 degrees +/- 6.72 degrees, Delta alpha = 0.03 +/- 0.02), faster in execution time, and flexible in its application. MIL (Delta theta = 6.23 degrees +/- 10.68 degrees, Delta alpha = 0.08 +/- 0.06) was not significantly less accurate than FTM but was much slower. LFD (Delta theta = 9.97 degrees +/- 11.82 degrees, Delta alpha = 0.24 +/- 0.13) consistently underperformed. FTM results agreed qualitatively with fibrin gel SEM micrographs, suggesting that FTM can be used to obtain image-based statistical measurements of microstructure. (C) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 88A: 322-331, 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available