Cargando…

Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages

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, instrumen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Ankur, Goswami, Mayank
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10616098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37903822
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45849-y
_version_ 1785129317926174720
author Kumar, Ankur
Goswami, Mayank
author_facet Kumar, Ankur
Goswami, Mayank
author_sort Kumar, Ankur
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10616098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106160982023-11-01 Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages Kumar, Ankur Goswami, Mayank Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10616098/ /pubmed/37903822 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45849-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Kumar, Ankur
Goswami, Mayank
Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages
title Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages
title_full Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages
title_fullStr Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages
title_full_unstemmed Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages
title_short Performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages
title_sort performance comparison of instrument automation pipelines using different programming languages
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10616098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37903822
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45849-y
work_keys_str_mv AT kumarankur performancecomparisonofinstrumentautomationpipelinesusingdifferentprogramminglanguages
AT goswamimayank performancecomparisonofinstrumentautomationpipelinesusingdifferentprogramminglanguages