| ²é¿´: 3072 | »Ø¸´: 12 | ||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | ||
PEEK_polymerгæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
|
[ÇóÖú]
Image J ͳ¼Æ¿×³ß´ç ÒÑÓÐ2È˲ÎÓë
|
|
·¢ÅÝ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
2026Äê8ÔÂ25ÈÕ¹ú×ÔÈ»·Å°ñǰͻȻÊÕµ½ÁÐÈëÆÀÉóר¼ÒÓʼþ£¬ÓйØÏµÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ19È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCIÒ»ÇøT0PÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8.O.55.1.O.5.4,¿ÆÄ¿È«,¿É+¼±
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
½ñÌìÎñί»á¿ªÍêÁË£¬Ã÷Ìì³ö½á¹ûÂð
ÒѾÓÐ21È˻ظ´
ÔÚ¼á±ù»¹¸Ç×ű±º£µÄʱºò£¬ÎÒ¿´µ½ÁËŷŵÄ÷»¨¡£
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Ã÷ÌìÓ¦¸Ã¿É²éÁË£¡£¿
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
ÓÐûÓдóÉñ°ïÎÒ¿´¿´»ù½ð´úÂë
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
·Å°ñǰµÄ²»µ¶¨
ÒѾÓÐ19È˻ظ´
ijЩ»ú¹¹£¬ÒÔЧÂʵÍΪÈÙ£¬ÒÔЧÂʵÍ×÷Ϊ´æÔÚ¸Ð
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
2026¹ú×ÔÈ»º¯ÆÀ·Ñµ½ÕË
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´
½ñÈÕ²»·Å°ñ£¿Íø´«¹ú×ÔȻԤ¼Æ 8 Ô 27 Èտɲé½á¹û
ÒѾÓÐ22È˻ظ´
PEEK_polymer
гæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 19
- Ìû×Ó: 8
- ÔÚÏß: 8.8Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 3414039
- ×¢²á: 2014-09-13
- רҵ: ¸ß·Ö×Ó²ÄÁϽṹÓëÐÔÄÜ
7Â¥2015-11-24 13:33:31
dota
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 19 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 1743.5
- É¢½ð: 3711
- ºì»¨: 9
- Ìû×Ó: 1258
- ÔÚÏß: 1385.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 302890
- ×¢²á: 2006-12-03
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Chem & Biomed Imaging
¡¾´ð°¸¡¿Ó¦Öú»ØÌû
¸Ðл²ÎÓ룬ӦÖúÖ¸Êý +1
|
1) Set scale. Enlarge your image, draw a line of the exactly same length to the scale bar. For you image, 81.5 pixel = 20 um) 2) Adjust threshold, which showed reasonable segmentations. 3) Analysis Particles. Based on the visional pore sizes, I would say areas between 100 um^2 and 600 um^2 should be the correct pores. 4) Copy the results into the Excel to calculate the average and the stDev. The 45 pores were detected out. The pore perimeter is 25.6 +/- 9.8 um. Some pore might be missed due to either the irregular shapes or the low image contrasts (not good segmentations) Cheers! |
2Â¥2015-11-24 09:36:04
dota
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 19 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 1743.5
- É¢½ð: 3711
- ºì»¨: 9
- Ìû×Ó: 1258
- ÔÚÏß: 1385.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 302890
- ×¢²á: 2006-12-03
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Chem & Biomed Imaging
3Â¥2015-11-24 09:38:56
PEEK_polymer
гæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 19
- Ìû×Ó: 8
- ÔÚÏß: 8.8Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 3414039
- ×¢²á: 2014-09-13
- רҵ: ¸ß·Ö×Ó²ÄÁϽṹÓëÐÔÄÜ
4Â¥2015-11-24 10:12:29









»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
Ì«¸ÐлÁË£¡£¡»¹ÓÐÒ»¸öÎÊÌ⣬¾ÍÊÇãÐÖµÒªÔõôµ÷²ÅËãºÏÊÊ£¿Auto ºÃÏñ²»Ì«¶Ô