ArticleScientific reports2024
Stripe noise removal in conductive atomic force microscopy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conductive Atomic Force Microscopy-Ultralow-Current Measurement Systems for Nanoscale Imaging of a Surface's Electrical Properties.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conductive atomic force microscopy (c-AFM) can provide simultaneous maps of the topography and electrical current flow through materials with high spatial resolution and it is playing an increasingly important role in the characterization of novel materials that are being investigated for novel memory devices. However, noise in the form of stripe features often appear in c-AFM images, challenging the quantitative analysis of conduction or topographical information. To remove stripe noise without losing interesting information, as many as sixteen destriping methods are investigated in this paper, including three additional models that we propose based on the stripes characteristics, and thirteen state-of-the-art destriping methods. We have also designed a gradient stripe noise model and obtained a ground truth dataset consisting of 800 images, generated by rotating and cropping a clean image, and created a noisy image dataset by adding random intensities of simulated noise to the ground truth dataset. In addition to comparing the results of the stripe noise removal visually, we performed a quantitative image quality comparison using simulated datasets and 100 images with very different strengths of simulated noise. All results show that the Low-Rank Recovery method has the best performance and robustness for removing gradient stripe noise without losing useful information. Furthermore, a detailed performance comparison of Polynomial fitting and Low-Rank Recovery at different levels of real noise is presented.
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.