ArticleScientific reports2023
Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The article presents a performance analysis of fully automated, in-house developed 2D ultrasound computerized tomography systems using different programming languages. The system is fully automated in four programming languages: LabVIEW, MATLAB, C and Python. It includes codes for sensors, instruments interfacing, real-time control, synchronized data acquisition, simultaneous raw data processing and analysis. Launch performance, eight performance indices and runtime performance are used for the analysis. It is found that C utilizes the least processing power and executes fewer I/O processes to perform the same task. In runtime analysis (data acquisition and real-time control), LabVIEW (365.69 s) performed best in comparison to MATLAB (623.83 s), Python (1505.54 s), and C (1252.03 s) to complete the experiment without data processing. However, in the experiment with data processing, MATLAB (640.33 s) performed best in comparison to LabVIEW (731.91 s), Python (1520.01 s) and C (1930.15 s). Python performed better in establishing faster interfacing and RAM usage. The study provides a methodology to select optimal programming languages for instrument automation-related aspects to optimize the available resources.
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.