ArticleJournal of synchrotron radiation2022
Foam-like phantoms for comparing tomography algorithms.
Article in Journal of synchrotron radiation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fibre phantom generation using FibreSimulator: an open-source Python tool.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2026Article
- Multi-stage deep learning artifact reduction for parallel-beam computed tomography.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2025Article
- tomoCAM: fast model-based iterative reconstruction via GPU acceleration and non-uniform fast Fourier transforms.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tomographic algorithms are often compared by evaluating them on certain benchmark datasets. For fair comparison, these datasets should ideally (i) be challenging to reconstruct, (ii) be representative of typical tomographic experiments, (iii) be flexible to allow for different acquisition modes, and (iv) include enough samples to allow for comparison of data-driven algorithms. Current approaches often satisfy only some of these requirements, but not all. For example, real-world datasets are typically challenging and representative of a category of experimental examples, but are restricted to the acquisition mode that was used in the experiment and are often limited in the number of samples. Mathematical phantoms are often flexible and can sometimes produce enough samples for data-driven approaches, but can be relatively easy to reconstruct and are often not representative of typical scanned objects. In this paper, we present a family of foam-like mathematical phantoms that aims to satisfy all four requirements simultaneously. The phantoms consist of foam-like structures with more than 100000 features, making them challenging to reconstruct and representative of common tomography samples. Because the phantoms are computer-generated, varying acquisition modes and experimental conditions can be simulated. An effectively unlimited number of random variations of the phantoms can be generated, making them suitable for data-driven approaches. We give a formal mathematical definition of the foam-like phantoms, and explain how they can be generated and used in virtual tomographic experiments in a computationally efficient way. In addition, several 4D extensions of the 3D phantoms are given, enabling comparisons of algorithms for dynamic tomography. Finally, example phantoms and tomographic datasets are given, showing that the phantoms can be effectively used to make fair and informative comparisons between tomography algorithms.
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.