MIP Image Comparison

1
116 (Hydrogel) 117 (Hydrogel) 120 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 121 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 122 (Hydrogel +MSCs) UNPROCESSED IMAGES represented as 2D maximum intensity projections MicroComputed Tomography (μCT) Image Processing Program and funciton design by Andrew Graveley. Images provided by Michael D. Hoffmana , Chao Xieb, Xinping Zhangb, and Danielle S.W. Benoit, of the University of Rocehster. PROCESSED IMAGES μCT images convolved by 3D Gaussian kernel and selectively applied with graduated masking in MATLAB TM 116 (Hydrogel) 117 (Hydrogel) 120 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 121 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 122 (Hydrogel +MSCs)

Transcript of MIP Image Comparison

Page 1: MIP Image Comparison

116 (Hydrogel) 117 (Hydrogel) 120 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 121 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 122 (Hydrogel +MSCs)

Unprocessed imagesrepresented as 2d maximum intensity projections

MicroComputed Tomography (μCT) Image Processingprogram and funciton design by andrew graveley. images provided by michael d. Hoffmana , chao Xieb, Xinping Zhangb, and danielle s.W. Benoit, of the University of rocehster.

processed imagesμCT images convolved by 3D Gaussian kernel and selectively

applied with graduated masking in MATLABTM

116 (Hydrogel) 117 (Hydrogel) 120 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 121 (Hydrogel +MSCs) 122 (Hydrogel +MSCs)