ArticleScientific reports2024
Semantic segmentation in crystal growth process using fake micrograph machine learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microscopic evaluation is one of the most effective methods in materials research. High-quality images are essential to analyze microscopic images using artificial intelligence. To overcome this challenge, we propose the machine learning of "fake micrographs" in this study. To verify the effectiveness of this method, we chose to analyze the optical microscopic images of the crystal growth process of a Ge thin film, which is a material in which it is difficult to obtain a contrast between the crystal and amorphous states. By learning the automatically generated fake micrographs that mimic the crystal growth process, the machine learning model can now identify the low-resolution real micrographs as crystalline or amorphous. Comparing the three types of machine learning models, it was found that ResUNet ++ exhibited high accuracy, exceeding 90%. The technology developed in this study for the automatic and rapid analysis of low-resolution images is widely helpful in material research.
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.