2021
DOI: 10.1117/1.jbo.26.2.022909
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

FLIM data analysis based on Laguerre polynomial decomposition and machine-learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In these equations, g i and s i are the coordinates along the horizontal (G) and vertical (S) axis, ω is the modulation frequency, I(t) is the TCSPC data at the i th pixel. The deconvolution-based method is another common form of decay trace analysis technique [4,20]. Deconvolution-based methods recover the lifetime decay from the measured fluorescence signal by deconvolution of the system response function (IRF).…”
Section: Super-resolution Microscopymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In these equations, g i and s i are the coordinates along the horizontal (G) and vertical (S) axis, ω is the modulation frequency, I(t) is the TCSPC data at the i th pixel. The deconvolution-based method is another common form of decay trace analysis technique [4,20]. Deconvolution-based methods recover the lifetime decay from the measured fluorescence signal by deconvolution of the system response function (IRF).…”
Section: Super-resolution Microscopymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The deconvolution-based method is another common form of decay trace analysis technique [4,20]. Deconvolution-based methods recover the lifetime decay from the measured fluorescence signal by deconvolution of the system response function (IRF).…”
Section: Superresolution Microscopymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Like the phasor approach, machine learning has been used to achieve fit-free estimates of fluorescence lifetimes from decays on the pixel level, 21 where simulated data were used to compare a machine learning approach to standard fitting algorithms. The root-mean-squared-error, which represents the difference between the reconstructed and measured decay traces, was observed to be lower for the machine learning approach compared to the standard fitting algorithm, including up to three-component analysis.…”
Section: Pixel-level Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%