2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2010.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic noise quantification for confocal fluorescence microscopy images

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…S1 B) and moving cells were identified as having an absolute value greater than 6 x the estimated standard deviation of the image’s white noise (Fig. S1 C; Paul et al, 2010). Cells larger than 5 μm 2 were then consecutively morphologically dilated and eroded, using structuring disks of radii 41 μηι and 21 μηι, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…S1 B) and moving cells were identified as having an absolute value greater than 6 x the estimated standard deviation of the image’s white noise (Fig. S1 C; Paul et al, 2010). Cells larger than 5 μm 2 were then consecutively morphologically dilated and eroded, using structuring disks of radii 41 μηι and 21 μηι, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We first identified ampullae in every frame (Fig. S2 A) as regions darker than 20 x the estimated standard deviation of the image’s white noise (Paul et al, 2010). The resulting binarized image was then consecutively morphologically opened and closed, using a structuring disk of radius 9.5 μm (Fig.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the first step towards segmentation, a background subtraction (as described in 2.1) can be applied, here affecting only this step of the analysis. Second, default de-noising is performed by applying a Gaussian filter with a radius of 0.6 px [59] and by subtracting the estimated mean of the uniform Gaussian white noise, replacing the homogeneity analyzer proposed in [60,61], which is utilized to identify the empty portions of the image, by the Absolute Difference Mask (ADM) edge detector [62]. Candidate object locations are then detected using the ''à trous'' wavelet transform [30], followed by a filtering step in which only single-pixel local maxima detections are kept.…”
Section: Image Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, the problem is addressed by using a simple regression based approach. In [11] authors show that the scale parameter of Poisson noise is not a pure estimate of the detector gain. In this work, a maximum likelihood method is proposed which sometimes leads to inaccurate results, due to an unreliable background classification scheme.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Previous noise parameter estimation studies in fluorescence imaging systems can be found in [7,8,9,10,11,12]. The author in [7] proposes a cumulantbased approach.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%