Cargando…
Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How Reliable Are Our Measurements?
[Image: see text] Optical chemical imaging has established itself as a valuable technique for visualizing analyte distributions in 2D, notably in medical, biological, and environmental applications. In particular for image acquisitions on small scales between few millimeter to the micrometer range,...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Chemical Society
2022
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9016884/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35449925 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c07232 |
_version_ | 1784688644192206848 |
---|---|
author | Zieger, Silvia E. Jones, Peter D. Koren, Klaus |
author_facet | Zieger, Silvia E. Jones, Peter D. Koren, Klaus |
author_sort | Zieger, Silvia E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | [Image: see text] Optical chemical imaging has established itself as a valuable technique for visualizing analyte distributions in 2D, notably in medical, biological, and environmental applications. In particular for image acquisitions on small scales between few millimeter to the micrometer range, as well as in heterogeneous samples with steep analyte gradients, image resolution is essential. When individual pixels are inspected, however, image noise becomes a metric as relevant as image accuracy and precision, and denoising filters are applied to preserve relevant information. While denoising filters smooth the image noise, they can also lead to a loss of spatial resolution and thus to a loss of relevant information about analyte distributions. To investigate the trade-off between image resolution and noise reduction for information preservation, we studied the impact of random camera noise and noise due to incorrect camera settings on oxygen optodes using the ratiometric imaging technique. First, we estimated the noise amplification across the calibration process using a Monte Carlo simulation for nonlinear fit models. We demonstrated how initially marginal random camera noise results in a significant standard deviation (SD) for oxygen concentration of up to 2.73% air under anoxic conditions, although the measurement was conducted under ideal conditions and over 270 thousand sample pixels were considered during calibration. Second, we studied the effect of the Gaussian denoising filter on a steep oxygen gradient and investigated the impact when the smoothing filter is applied during data processing. Finally, we demonstrated the effectiveness of a Savitzky-Golay filter compared to the well-established Gaussian filter. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9016884 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | American Chemical Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90168842022-04-20 Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How Reliable Are Our Measurements? Zieger, Silvia E. Jones, Peter D. Koren, Klaus ACS Omega [Image: see text] Optical chemical imaging has established itself as a valuable technique for visualizing analyte distributions in 2D, notably in medical, biological, and environmental applications. In particular for image acquisitions on small scales between few millimeter to the micrometer range, as well as in heterogeneous samples with steep analyte gradients, image resolution is essential. When individual pixels are inspected, however, image noise becomes a metric as relevant as image accuracy and precision, and denoising filters are applied to preserve relevant information. While denoising filters smooth the image noise, they can also lead to a loss of spatial resolution and thus to a loss of relevant information about analyte distributions. To investigate the trade-off between image resolution and noise reduction for information preservation, we studied the impact of random camera noise and noise due to incorrect camera settings on oxygen optodes using the ratiometric imaging technique. First, we estimated the noise amplification across the calibration process using a Monte Carlo simulation for nonlinear fit models. We demonstrated how initially marginal random camera noise results in a significant standard deviation (SD) for oxygen concentration of up to 2.73% air under anoxic conditions, although the measurement was conducted under ideal conditions and over 270 thousand sample pixels were considered during calibration. Second, we studied the effect of the Gaussian denoising filter on a steep oxygen gradient and investigated the impact when the smoothing filter is applied during data processing. Finally, we demonstrated the effectiveness of a Savitzky-Golay filter compared to the well-established Gaussian filter. American Chemical Society 2022-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9016884/ /pubmed/35449925 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c07232 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Permits non-commercial access and re-use, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained; but does not permit creation of adaptations or other derivative works (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Zieger, Silvia E. Jones, Peter D. Koren, Klaus Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How Reliable Are Our Measurements? |
title | Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How
Reliable Are Our Measurements? |
title_full | Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How
Reliable Are Our Measurements? |
title_fullStr | Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How
Reliable Are Our Measurements? |
title_full_unstemmed | Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How
Reliable Are Our Measurements? |
title_short | Noise versus Resolution in Optical Chemical Imaging—How
Reliable Are Our Measurements? |
title_sort | noise versus resolution in optical chemical imaging—how
reliable are our measurements? |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9016884/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35449925 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c07232 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ziegersilviae noiseversusresolutioninopticalchemicalimaginghowreliableareourmeasurements AT jonespeterd noiseversusresolutioninopticalchemicalimaginghowreliableareourmeasurements AT korenklaus noiseversusresolutioninopticalchemicalimaginghowreliableareourmeasurements |