ReviewJournal of applied crystallography2021
Upscaling X-ray nanoimaging to macroscopic specimens.
Review in Journal of applied crystallography, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical point drying of brain tissue for X-ray phase-contrast imaging.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2026Article
- 50th anniversary of the Stanford SSRL synchrotron radiation and protein crystallography initiative.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2026Article
- Nondestructive X-ray tomography of brain tissue ultrastructure.Nature methods · 2025Article
- Experimental comparison of X-ray ptychographic and holographic nanotomography of metal-stained neuronal tissue.Optics express · 2025Article
- Scaling up X-ray holographic nanotomography for neuronal tissue imaging.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Article
- A closer look at high-energy X-ray-induced bubble formation during soft tissue imaging.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2024Article
- Deep learning at the edge enables real-time streaming ptychographic imaging.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Demonstration of an AI-driven workflow for autonomous high-resolution scanning microscopy.Nature communications · 2023Article
- A multiscale X-ray phase-contrast tomography dataset of a whole human left lung.Scientific data · 2022Article
- High-speed free-run ptychography at the Australian Synchrotron.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Upscaling X-ray nanoimaging to macroscopic specimens has the potential for providing insights across multiple length scales, but its feasibility has long been an open question. By combining the imaging requirements and existing proof-of-principle examples in large-specimen preparation, data acquisition and reconstruction algorithms, the authors provide imaging time estimates for howX-ray nanoimaging can be scaled to macroscopic specimens. To arrive at this estimate, a phase contrast imaging model that includes plural scattering effects is used to calculate the required exposure and corresponding radiation dose. The coherent X-ray flux anticipated from upcoming diffraction-limited light sources is then considered. This imaging time estimation is in particular applied to the case of the connectomes of whole mouse brains. To image the connectome of the whole mouse brain, electron microscopy connectomics might require years, whereas optimized X-ray microscopy connectomics could reduce this to one week. Furthermore, this analysis points to challenges that need to be overcome (such as increased X-ray detector frame rate) and opportunities that advances in artificial-intelligence-based 'smart' scanning might provide. While the technical advances required are daunting, it is shown that X-ray microscopy is indeed potentially applicable to nanoimaging of millimetre- or even centimetre-size specimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.