Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27522477›Full record

ArticleUltramicroscopy2016

Adaptive multiresolution method for MAP reconstruction in electron tomography.

Erman Acar, Sari Peltonen, Ulla Ruotsalainen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultramicroscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Erman AcarDepartment of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 553, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland; BioMediTech, Tampere University of Technology, Biokatu 10, 33520 Tampere, Finland. Electronic address: erman.acar@tut.fi.
Sari PeltonenDepartment of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 553, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland; BioMediTech, Tampere University of Technology, Biokatu 10, 33520 Tampere, Finland.
Ulla RuotsalainenDepartment of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 553, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland; BioMediTech, Tampere University of Technology, Biokatu 10, 33520 Tampere, Finland.

Funding

VISUALIZATION TOOLS FOR AUTOMATED MOLECULAR MICROSCOPYP41RR008605 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PAPADOPOULOS, PHILIP · 1994 to 2011
$28.1M
VOLUMETRIC CONTOUR-BASED SURFACE RECONSTRUCTIONP41RR004050 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PASQUALE, ELENA B · 1989 to 2011
$28.0M
DEVELOPMENT OF A 3-D CELL-CENTERED NEURONAL DATABASER01DA016602 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI MARTONE, MARYANN E · 2003 to 2007
$3.4M
NCRR NIH HHS P41 RR004050NCRR NIH HHS P41 RR008605NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA016602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D image reconstruction with electron tomography holds problems due to the severely limited range of projection angles and low signal to noise ratio of the acquired projection images. The maximum a posteriori (MAP) reconstruction methods have been successful in compensating for the missing information and suppressing noise with their intrinsic regularization techniques. There are two major problems in MAP reconstruction methods: (1) selection of the regularization parameter that controls the balance between the data fidelity and the prior information, and (2) long computation time. One aim of this study is to provide an adaptive solution to the regularization parameter selection problem without having additional knowledge about the imaging environment and the sample. The other aim is to realize the reconstruction using sequences of resolution levels to shorten the computation time. The reconstructions were analyzed in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency using a simulated biological phantom and publically available experimental datasets of electron tomography. The numerical and visual evaluations of the experiments show that the adaptive multiresolution method can provide more accurate results than the weighted back projection (WBP), simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT), and sequential MAP expectation maximization (sMAPEM) method. The method is superior to sMAPEM also in terms of computation time and usability since it can reconstruct 3D images significantly faster without requiring any parameter to be set by the user.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectron Microscope TomographyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalPhantoms, ImagingAdaptive reconstructionElectron tomography (ET)Maximum a posteriori (MAP) reconstructionMissing wedgeMultiresolution reconstructionRegularization parameter

Identifiers

PMID27522477
PMCPMC7115799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.