scholarly journals Development and Validation of Non simultaneous Retinal Image Acquisition–Based Retinal Oximeter

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumeer Singh ◽  
Gunasekaran Velu ◽  
Rajiv Raman
Author(s):  
S Harinarayanan ◽  
T V Prabhakar ◽  
Shyam Vasudeva Rao ◽  
N V Chalapathi Rao ◽  
S Venkatakrishnan

Eye ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Goyal ◽  
T R Padhi ◽  
T Das ◽  
L Pradhan ◽  
S Sutar ◽  
...  

Agronomy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 731
Author(s):  
Pedro Faria ◽  
Telmo Nogueira ◽  
Ana Ferreira ◽  
Cristina Carlos ◽  
Luís Rosado

The increasing alarming impacts of climate change are already apparent in viticulture, with unexpected pest outbreaks as one of the most concerning consequences. The monitoring of pests is currently done by deploying chromotropic and delta traps, which attracts insects present in the production environment, and then allows human operators to identify and count them. While the monitoring of these traps is still mostly done through visual inspection by the winegrowers, smartphone image acquisition of those traps is starting to play a key role in assessing the pests’ evolution, as well as enabling the remote monitoring by taxonomy specialists in better assessing the onset outbreaks. This paper presents a new methodology that embeds artificial intelligence into mobile devices to establish the use of hand-held image capture of insect traps for pest detection deployed in vineyards. Our methodology combines different computer vision approaches that improve several aspects of image capture quality and adequacy, namely: (i) image focus validation; (ii) shadows and reflections validation; (iii) trap type detection; (iv) trap segmentation; and (v) perspective correction. A total of 516 images were collected, divided into three different datasets and manually annotated, in order to support the development and validation of the different functionalities. By following this approach, we achieved an accuracy of 84% for focus detection, an accuracy of 80% and 96% for shadows/reflections detection (for delta and chromotropic traps, respectively), as well as mean Jaccard index of 97% for the trap’s segmentation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 20200449
Author(s):  
Deivi Cascante-Sequeira ◽  
Hugo Gaêta-Araujo ◽  
Leonardo Vieira Peroni ◽  
Christiano Oliveira-Santos ◽  
Francisco Haiter-Neto

Objective: To create and validate two new Image Receptor-Holding devices (IRHDs) to reduce proximal surfaces overlapping in bitewing radiography in comparison to a regular well-established and commercially available IRHD. Methods: Two IRHDs for bitewing radiographs with a wedge on the biting surface were designed and 3D-printed. These IRHDs, with a large wedge (Pr-Lw) and small wedge (Pr-Sw), were compared with a regular commercially available IRHD (Rinn XCP®) during image acquisition of bitewing radiographs of four posterior regions (one upper region and three lower regions) in two dry skulls and mandibles. A total of 156 interproximal regions on bitewing radiographs were radiographed by 13 oral radiology graduate students and independently assessed by two oral radiologists (10 years of experience). IRHDs were compared by Cochran’s Q test regarding the number of overlapped proximal surfaces in the acquired radiographs with a significance level of 5%. Results: The observers were in perfect agreement (κ = 1.0) to classify the proximal surfaces overlapping. The Pr-Lw IRHD presented the lowest number of surfaces overlapping (19.2%) followed by the Pr-Sw IRHD (48.1%) and the XCP®IRHD with the highest surfaces overlapping (71.2%). The Pr-Lw IRHD surfaces overlapping was statistically different from the XCP IRHD (p < 0.001), and the Pr-Sw IRHD (p = 0.014). Conclusions: The Pr-Lw IRHD demonstrated the most efficient performance in overlapping surfaces reduction, compared with the Pr-Sw IRHD and the XCP® IRHD in adult dry skulls and mandibles.


Author(s):  
S Harinarayanan ◽  
T V Prabhakar ◽  
Shyam Vasudeva Rao ◽  
N V Chalapathi Rao ◽  
S Venkatakrishnan

Author(s):  
Brian Cross

A relatively new entry, in the field of microscopy, is the Scanning X-Ray Fluorescence Microscope (SXRFM). Using this type of instrument (e.g. Kevex Omicron X-ray Microprobe), one can obtain multiple elemental x-ray images, from the analysis of materials which show heterogeneity. The SXRFM obtains images by collimating an x-ray beam (e.g. 100 μm diameter), and then scanning the sample with a high-speed x-y stage. To speed up the image acquisition, data is acquired "on-the-fly" by slew-scanning the stage along the x-axis, like a TV or SEM scan. To reduce the overhead from "fly-back," the images can be acquired by bi-directional scanning of the x-axis. This results in very little overhead with the re-positioning of the sample stage. The image acquisition rate is dominated by the x-ray acquisition rate. Therefore, the total x-ray image acquisition rate, using the SXRFM, is very comparable to an SEM. Although the x-ray spatial resolution of the SXRFM is worse than an SEM (say 100 vs. 2 μm), there are several other advantages.


Author(s):  
James F. Mancuso

IBM PC compatible computers are widely used in microscopy for applications ranging from control to image acquisition and analysis. The choice of IBM-PC based systems over competing computer platforms can be based on technical merit alone or on a number of factors relating to economics, availability of peripherals, management dictum, or simple personal preference.IBM-PC got a strong “head start” by first dominating clerical, document processing and financial applications. The use of these computers spilled into the laboratory where the DOS based IBM-PC replaced mini-computers. Compared to minicomputer, the PC provided a more for cost-effective platform for applications in numerical analysis, engineering and design, instrument control, image acquisition and image processing. In addition, the sitewide use of a common PC platform could reduce the cost of training and support services relative to cases where many different computer platforms were used. This could be especially true for the microscopists who must use computers in both the laboratory and the office.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document