4.3 Article

The effects of despeckling filters on pore size measurements in collagen scaffold micro-CT data

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROSCOPY
卷 284, 期 2, 页码 142-156

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jmi.13050

关键词

collagen; filters; micro-CT; pore size; processing; scaffolds

资金

  1. Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, University of Cambridge
  2. EPSRC [EP/N019938/1]
  3. EPSRC [EP/N019938/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper identifies and characterizes an artifact in a commonly used filter that inaccurately increases mean pore size. Effective methods to mitigate its effects are devised, providing guidance for future studies investigating the effects of pore size.
Micro-CT is often used to assess the characteristics of porous structures such as tissue engineering scaffolds and trabecular bone. Prior to analysis, micro-CT images can be thresholded and filtered to remove noise. Scaffold pore size affects mechanical properties and biological cell behaviour and is a frequently assessed parameter. This paper identifies and characterizes an artefact affecting a commonly used filter which erroneously increases mean pore size. The 3D sweep despeckling filter removes all but the largest object within a volume of interest, and therefore deletes any disconnected objects located at the periphery, increasing measured mean pore size. This artefact is characterized, and effective methods to mitigate its effects are devised, involving despeckling a sufficiently large volume of interest, then reducing the volume of interest in size to remove the error prior to analysis. Techniques to effectively apply this method to other data sets are described. This method eliminates the artefact but is time-consuming and computationally expensive. Alternative, more economical filters which remove objects below a specified size are also assessed but are shown to be affected by the same artefact. These results will help to guide the implementation of future studies investigating the effects of pore size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据