Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 10 references

Signal-to-noise and spatial resolution in in-line imaging. 2. Phase-contrast tomography

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Phase-contrast CT lifts 3D image SNR by up to about 11 times in breast tissue.

desk verdict A substantive PB-CT paper with a new dose-normalized quality metric and honest experimental data, but the strong gain claims rest on an unvalidated monomorphous assumption and one partially circular detector calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20277 v3 pith:2MKWE5RN submitted 2025-06-25 physics.med-ph

T. E. Gureyev , D. M. Paganin , K. M. Pavlov , A. Maksimenko , H. M. Quiney This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords X-rayphase-contrastimagingpropagation-basedcomputedtomographyPaganinmethodtransportofintensityequationsignal-to-noiseratiospatialresolutionbreasttissueradiationdose
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that propagation-based phase-contrast CT (PB-CT) with single-image phase retrieval can substantially beat the usual trade-off between signal, resolution, and dose in X-ray imaging of biological tissue. It introduces a dimensionless 'biomedical imaging quality characteristic' $Q_C$ that folds contrast and radiation dose into the intrinsic quality measure $Q_S$, so that different imaging chains can be compared for a given sample type. Using full mastectomy samples at 32 keV, 5 m propagation, and 4 mGy mean glandular dose, the authors measure 3D SNR gains of about 4.3 with a flat-panel detector and 10.9 with a photon-counting detector after Paganin retrieval, consistent with their theoretical estimates. If the claim holds, PB-CT can deliver the same image quality as attenuation-based CT at roughly a hundredth of the dose, or markedly better quality at the same dose. It also explains why CT alone scores low on $Q_C$: the ill-posed CT reconstruction step amplifies high-frequency noise, and Paganin's filter suppresses exactly that amplification when combined with CT.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the homogeneous transport-of-intensity equation (TIE-Hom), also called Paganin's method: for a sample with a constant ratio $\gamma = \delta/\beta$, free-space propagation maps the object-plane intensity to $I_R = (1-a^2\nabla_\perp^2)I_0$, and inversion is a convolution with a 2D or 3D filter (a modified Bessel $K_0$ function in 2D, a Yukawa potential in 3D). Because the TIE-Hom operator commutes with the X-ray projection operator, the 3D reconstruction can be written as $\beta = \mathcal{P}^{-1}(1-a^2\nabla^2)^{-1} C_R$: the noise-suppressing Paganin filter and the noise-amplifying CT ramp filter act on the same frequencies, with the net effect that $\mathrm{SNR}^2$ in PB-CT becomes nearly resolution-independent. The paper's quantitative predictions are organized by the dimensionless ratio $\gamma/N_F$, where $\gamma \approx 869$ for breast tissue at 32 keV and $N_F$ is the minimal Fresnel number; when $\gamma/N_F$ is 10–100, each detected photon can carry many bits of phase information, which is the source of the 'beneficial violation' of the noise-resolution uncertainty relation.

What would settle it

Scan a calibration phantom with known inserts having two or more different phase-to-absorption ratios under the same 32 keV, 5 m, 4 mGy protocol. If single-ratio TIE-Hom retrieval reproduces the measured 3D SNR gains of about 4–11 but the reconstructed absorption values deviate from the known insert values by more than the stated resolution, the monomorphous assumption is the cause; a multi-material retrieval that removes the deviations would then confirm that part of the gain was an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in three-dimensional propagation-based phase-contrast CT, applying the homogeneous transport-of-intensity (TIE-Hom, Paganin) retrieval before filtered back-projection converts the phase signal into a genuine SNR advantage at fixed dose and resolution, while also taming the noise-amplifying ramp filter of CT. Quantitatively, the authors define the biomedical imaging quality $Q_C = Q_S \, C_m \, (R_{\mathrm{ab,air}}/R_{\mathrm{ab,tissue}})^2$ (eq. 14), with $Q_S$ the intrinsic quality equal to $\mathrm{SNR}^2/(I_{\mathrm{in}}\Delta^n)$, $C_m$ the sample contrast, and the dose terms normalizing by absorbed dose or mean glandular dose. They measure 3D SNR gain factors $G_3 \approx 4.3$ (Xineos flat-panel detector) and $G_3 \approx 10.9$ (Eiger photon-counting detector) in mastectomy samples at 32 keV, 4 mGy MGD, and 5 m propagation, values that lie between the two theoretical estimates in eqs. (22) and (23). $Q_S$ rises from 0.93 to 1.77 and 3.91, above the Epanechnikov bound (a constant just above unity) that limits absorption-only imaging. The authors also show $Q_C$ for a CT volume is typically much smaller than unity because of CT's ill-posedness, but the measured gain factor transfers directly to $Q_C$, so the improvement is a real imaging-quality gain rather than a noise-reduction artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation treats each breast sample as one homogeneous material with a single fixed phase-to-absorption ratio (about 869 at 32 keV), and if real breast tissue violates that, Paganin retrieval can introduce artifacts and the measured gain no longer reflects true signal improvement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At equal dose and spatial resolution, PB-CT with TIE-Hom retrieval can raise 3D SNR by roughly an order of magnitude over attenuation-based CT in breast tissue, corresponding to a potential ~100-fold dose reduction for matched image quality because dose scales as $\mathrm{SNR}^2$.
  • The biomedical imaging quality $Q_C$ gives a single dimensionless number for comparing imaging chains on a given sample class; for PB-CT it is maximized when the mean transmission through the sample is $e^{-2}\approx 0.135$ ($\mu L=2$).
  • For reconstructed CT volumes, $Q_C$ is inherently small (about $10^{-3}$ without retrieval in this experiment) because filtered back-projection amplifies high-frequency noise; projected or slab-averaged reconstructions have much higher $Q_C$, so the dose-fractionation theorem does not hold for CT.
  • Detector choice matters through spatial resolution and PSF shape: the photon-counting Eiger detector with 75 $\mu$m pixels gave roughly 2.5 times the 3D gain of the flat-panel Xineos detector, consistent with Fresnel-number scaling.
  • The framework provides quantitative targets for choosing propagation distance, detector resolution, and the TIE-Hom parameter $a$ when moving PB-CT from synchrotron beamlines toward clinical X-ray sources.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The single-$\gamma$ monomorphous assumption is the load-bearing approximation: if real breast tissue mixes compositions within a voxel, part of the measured SNR gain may come from the retrieval smoothing over mismatched $\delta/\beta$ ratios, and a multi-material retrieval would separate the true phase signal from that artifact.
  • The same $Q_C$ metric could be extended to polychromatic clinical X-ray sources, where beam hardening changes the effective $\delta/\beta$ ratio; a spectral or calibration correction would be needed, and $Q_C$ would then allow a fair comparison between synchrotron and clinical PB-CT.
  • Because the gain scales with $\gamma/N_F$, propagation distance and detector pixel size are not independent knobs: an optimal Fresnel number should match the Paganin filter width to the detector PSF, a prediction testable by scanning a fixed phantom at several distances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This second part of the authors' study on in-line phase-contrast imaging applies the noise-resolution uncertainty (NRU) framework to propagation-based phase-contrast computed tomography (PB-CT). It introduces a dimensionless 'biomedical imaging quality characteristic' Q_C that combines contrast, SNR, spatial resolution, and radiation dose, and derives analytical expressions for Q_C in CT and PB-CT (eqs. 14-24). The theory is tested on synchrotron PB-CT data from two human mastectomy samples scanned at 32 keV with 4 mGy mean glandular dose using a flat-panel (Xineos) and a photon-counting (Eiger) detector. The measured 3D SNR gain factors are 4.3 (Xineos) and 10.9 (Eiger), and these lie between the theoretical estimates from eqs. (22) and (23). The paper concludes that PB-CT can deliver large, dose-relevant SNR gains over conventional CT while preserving spatial resolution.

Significance. The paper makes a useful contribution by proposing a sample- and dose-aware quality metric for biomedical phase-contrast imaging and by providing an explicit theoretical derivation of its value in CT, linking the smallness of Q_C to the ill-posedness of CT reconstruction (Appendix C). The experimental data are valuable: they are from full intact mastectomy samples at a clinically relevant dose, and the Eiger comparison is a genuinely non-trivial test, with the measured gain of 10.9 falling between the independent theoretical estimates of 9.5 and 11.6. The theoretical predictions for Q_C (9.5e-3) and the measured value (7.2e-3) agree to within about 30%, which is reasonable given the modelling approximations. The main weaknesses concern the support for the claim that the SNR gains are achieved at unchanged spatial resolution: the Xineos resolution is partly estimated from the same SNR data being compared, and no resolution check is performed after phase retrieval in the reconstructed volumes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, after Table 1] The Xineos spatial resolution is re-estimated as 212 μm from the measured SNR ratio via the NRU, and this value is then used to compute the Fresnel number and the theoretical gain factors for Xineos. This makes the Xineos gain comparison partially self-fulfilling: the measured SNR ratio is consistent with the NRU by construction, so the subsequent agreement between the measured 3D gain (4.3) and the theoretical range (3.2-4.9) is not an independent validation for that detector. An independent measurement of the Xineos resolution in the object plane (e.g. from an edge or line-pair phantom) is needed to break the circularity.
  2. [Section 5, eq. (20) and following text; Section 6] The reduction of the gain factor G_3 to the ratio of measured SNRs relies on the assertion that both the signal and the spatial resolution are identical before and after TIE-Hom retrieval. That assertion requires the sample to be strictly monomorphous, with a single ratio gamma = delta/beta valid at every point. The mastectomy samples are mixtures of adipose and glandular tissue, and the value gamma = 869.4 used here is the ratio of the differences in delta and beta between the two tissue types, not a locally valid material constant. For a non-monomorphous object the inverse TIE-Hom operator does not recover the true high-frequency signal; the measured SNR gain may therefore partly be a resolution-for-noise trade-off. No spatial resolution or artifact quantification is reported in the reconstructed volumes after retrieval, so the central claim that the gains of 4.3 and 10.9 are achieved 'without loss of spatial resolution' is currently not supported for these samples. The authors should measure the resolution in the reconstructed volumes (e.g. with a resolution phantom or via Fourier ring correlation) or otherwise bound the resolution loss.
  3. [Section 6, Tables 1 and 2] The SNR values and gain factors are reported without error bars or a noise model. The intra-scan spread in Table 2 is small (e.g. Eiger gains 10.7-11.0, Xineos gains 4.0-4.5), but the central quantitative claims ('approximately 4.3' and '10.9') and the comparison with theory (including the 30% discrepancy between theoretical and measured Q_C for Eiger, 9.5e-3 vs 7.2e-3) cannot be statistically evaluated without uncertainties. A per-pixel noise model or at least the standard deviation of the measured SNR values over independent slices should be reported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption states 'MGD 4 μGy', while the text and Figure 2 caption state 4 mGy; this is presumably a unit typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 6] The displayed computation of the incident fluence I_in is typeset in a way that is hard to follow ('8 10^3 Gy / (600 7 10^17 Gym)'); please rewrite the arithmetic with explicit units and intermediate steps so that the result 0.19 μm^-2 can be verified.
  3. [Section 5] The statement that the gain factor is independent of the parameter a in TIE-Hom retrieval is qualified by the conditions for validity of eq. (8), but this qualification is easy to miss; please state explicitly that the invariance holds only when the retrieval parameter is within the regime where the noise-resolution duality applies.
  4. [Appendix C vs Section 5] Equation (24) in the main text and equation (C3) in Appendix C present essentially the same result; the duplication is not a problem, but the authors should cross-reference them explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 6] The value of the breast tissue gamma = 869.4 is cited from an online calculator (TS-Imaging, 2025); since this parameter is central to the quantitative comparison, the underlying elemental composition and density assumptions should be stated, or at least a range of values relevant to the 0-100% glandularity interval should be reported.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Xineos theoretical gain comparison is partly calibrated: its spatial resolution is inferred from measured SNR via NRU and then fed back into the gain formulas.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, paragraph after Table 1; use of calibrated Δ[Xineos] in eqs. (22)-(23)]
    "Using the NRU, eq.(8), with the measured value Δ[Eiger] ≈ 83.2 μm and the ratio of average measured SNRs for Xineos and Eiger from Table 1, the value of Δ in the object plane for the Xineos detector can be estimated as Δ[Xineos] ≈ 83.2 μm × (85.6 / 33.6) ≈ 212.0 μm. ... We will use the value of Δ[Xineos] ≈ 212.0 μm in the calculations below, which corresponds to N_{F,MN}[Xineos] ≈ 240.1 and G2[Xineos] ≈ (869.4 / 240.1)^{1/2} ≈ 1.9."

    The Xineos detector resolution is not independently measured; it is inferred from the measured 2D SNR ratio using the NRU. Substituting that calibrated Δ into the gain expression G2 = (γ/N_F)^{1/2} with N_F = Δ²/(λR) yields G2[Xineos] = G2[Eiger]/(SNR_X/SNR_E) ≈ 4.8/2.55 ≈ 1.9, which is exactly the average 2D gain already measured in Table 1. The same fitted Δ is then inserted into eqs. (22) and (23) to report 'theoretical' 3D gain factors of 3.2 and 4.9 for Xineos. The Xineos theory-experiment comparison is therefore partly self-fulfilling: a parameter required for the prediction was calibrated from the very SNR data to which the theoretical gain is compared. The Eiger comparison uses an independently assumed pixel/PSF-based resolution and remains unaffected.

full rationale

The central experimental result, the measured 3D SNR gains of about 4.3 (Xineos) and 10.9 (Eiger) in Table 2, is a direct measurement and is not circular. The Eiger theoretical comparison is based on an independently assumed detector resolution (75 μm pixel / rectangular PSF) and gives a genuine prediction (measured 10.9 vs theoretical 9.5-11.6). The new biomedical quality metric QC is introduced as an explicit definition, not derived from itself. The TIE-Hom/Paganin retrieval and NRU framework are externally established and mathematically derived in prior work; citing them is not a circularity. The one genuine circular step is confined to the Xineos column of the theoretical comparison: Δ[Xineos] is estimated from the measured SNR ratio via NRU and then used to compute the 'theoretical' gains, making that specific comparison partially self-fulfilling. This affects a secondary consistency check rather than the measured gain claim itself, so the paper is only mildly circular overall. The monomorphous-sample assumption is a correctness/validity concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central analysis uses one free parameter (the Xineos spatial resolution, adjusted to match the measured 2D SNR ratio), several domain assumptions inherited from prior work on noise-resolution duality, and the new Q_C metric. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective spatial resolution of Xineos detector in object plane (Delta[Xineos]) = 212.0 micrometers
    In Section 6, after initial G2 estimate of 1.6 did not match the measured 1.9, Delta[Xineos] was re-estimated as Delta[Eiger] * (SNR_Xineos/SNR_Eiger) using NRU, and this value was then used to compute Fresnel number and theoretical gain factors for Xineos. This is a parameter adjusted to make theory match the measured 2D gain.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The imaged object is monomorphous/homogeneous, i.e., the delta-to-beta ratio is constant within the sample, so the TIE-Hom equation (4) applies with a single parameter gamma = delta/beta.
    Used throughout Sections 2, 5, and 6; required for Paganin phase retrieval. For heterogeneous breast tissue (adipose vs glandular), this is only approximately true; the paper uses gamma = 869.4 for the ratio of differences between tissue types, not a single material.
  • domain assumption The noise-resolution duality (NRU), eq. (8), holds: SNR squared divided by Delta to the power n is invariant under linear photon-number-conserving filters and is bounded by unity for absorption imaging.
    Foundation of the gain factor analysis in Sections 3 to 5; taken from previous work by the same group, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Photon detection statistics are Poissonian, and spatial ergodicity allows SNR and variance to be estimated from flat-field areas.
    Used in eq. (10) and in experimental SNR measurements in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Paraxial scalar wave propagation with thin-object approximation and near-Fresnel region applies.
    Basis of Fresnel diffraction and TIE-Hom in Section 2.
  • standard math CT reconstruction is linear with known ramp filter; a specific FBP implementation with nearest-neighbor interpolation gives the constant 12/pi squared in eq. (C1)/(24).
    Adopted from prior literature (Nesterets and Gureyev, 2014) and used in Appendix C.
  • standard math Fourier analysis, Parseval's theorem, and kernel properties (Bessel and Yukawa functions) are valid.
    Used in Appendices A and B to derive gain factor approximations.
invented entities (1)
  • Biomedical imaging quality characteristic Q_C
    purpose: A dimensionless metric to quantify X-ray image quality for biological samples, combining Q_S, contrast, and dose normalized to air absorption.
    Defined in eq. (14)/(14a); its validity relative to subjective radiological assessment is planned future work (Section 7), so no external validation yet. It is a new ledger entry rather than a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signal-to-noise and spatial resolution in in-line imaging. 2. Phase-contrast tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MKWE5RN

@misc{pith2026250620277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signal-to-noise and spatial resolution in in-line imaging. 2. Phase-contrast tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MKWE5RN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20277}
}
read the original abstract

In the first part of this paper, quantitative aspects of propagation-based phase-contrast imaging (PBI) were investigated using theoretical and numerical approaches, as well as experimental two-dimensional PBI images collected with plane monochromatic X-rays at a synchrotron beamline. In this second part, signal-to-noise ratio, spatial resolution and contrast are studied in connection with the radiation dose in three-dimensional PBI images of breast tissue samples obtained using propagation-based phase-contrast computed tomography (PB-CT) with energy-integrating and photon-counting detectors. The analysis is based on the theory of PBI and PB-CT using the homogeneous Transport of Intensity equation (Paganin's method). A biomedical image quality characteristic, suitable for quantitative assessment of X-ray images of biological samples, is introduced and applied. The key factors leading to high values of the biomedical imaging quality in PBI and to relatively low values of the same quality metric in CT imaging are identified and discussed in detail. This study is aimed primarily at developing tools for quantitative assessment and optimization of medical PB-CT imaging, initially at synchrotron facilities, with the prospect of subsequent transfer of the technology to medical clinics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig.1. Table 1 contains the results of measurements of the gain factor in the individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Gureyev, T.E

    Arhatari, B.D., Stevenson, A.W., Abbey, B., Nesterets, Y.I., Maksimenko, A., Hall, C.J., Thompson, D., Mayo, S.C., Fiala, T., Quiney, H.M., Taba, S.T., Lewis, S.J., Brennan, P.C., Dimmock, M., Hausermann, D. & Gureyev, T.E. (2021). Appl. Sci. 11,

    work page 2021

  2. [6]

    projected

    This theoretical estimation confirms that ,3 0[]CDQ  in the present configuration should indeed be expected to be much smaller than unity. It was already noted in Section 4 that ,3 ~1CDQ requires 3~ 10SNR , while in the present configuration we had 0[ ] 0.52SNR  . The key reason for the relatively small value of ,3CDQ in CT reconstruction is the ill-po...

    work page 2009

  3. [8]

    It can be shown from eq.(B3), or from the results in (Gureyev et al., 2016), that 2 2 2 4 2 0[ ] (12 / ) / a pixSNR n     , (C1) where 02k=

    A related question is about the measured values of ,3 0[]CDQ  being significantly smaller than unity. It can be shown from eq.(B3), or from the results in (Gureyev et al., 2016), that 2 2 2 4 2 0[ ] (12 / ) / a pixSNR n     , (C1) where 02k= . Note that the mean number of photons collected in a single detector pixel with the size pix during the ...

    work page 2016

  4. [40]

    Towards order of magnitude X-ray dose reduction in breast cancer imaging using phase contrast and deep denoising

    Paganin D., Gureyev T.E., Mayo S.C., Stevenson A.W., Nesterets Ya.I. & Wilkins, S.W. (2004). J. Micros. 214, 315-327. Pakzad, A., Turnbull, R., Mutch, S.J., Leatham, T.A., Lockie, D., Fox, J., Kumar, B., Häusermann, D., Hall, C.J., Maksimenko, A., Arhatari, B.D., Nesterets, Y.I., Entezam, A., Taba, S.T., Brennan, P.C., Gureyev, T.E. & Quiney, H.M. (2025)....

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  5. [88]

    & Wilkins, S.W

    Gureyev, T.E., Paganin, D.M., Myers, G.R., Nesterets, Ya.I. & Wilkins, S.W. (2006). Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 034102. Gureyev, T.E., Nesterets, Y.I., Stevenson, A.W., Miller, P.R., Pogany, A. & Wilkins, S.W. (2008). Opt. Expr. 16, 3223-3241. Gureyev, T.E., Nesterets, Y.I., de Hoog, F., Schmalz, G., Mayo, S.C., Mohammadi, S. & Tromba, G. (2014). Opt. Expr. 22,...

    work page 2006

  6. [126]

    & Yaffe, M.J

    DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18434/T4D01F; Johns, P.C. & Yaffe, M.J. (1985). Med. Phys. 12, 289-296. Kato, H. (2014). Japan. J. Radiolog. Technol. 70, 684-691. Kitchen, M. J., Buckley, G. A., Gureyev, T. E., Wallace, M. J., Andres-Thio, N., Uesugi, K., Yagi, N. & Hooper, S. B. (2017). Sci. Rep. 7, 15953. Liu, Q., Suleiman, M. E., McEntee, M. F. & Soh, B. P....

    doi:10.18434/t4d01f 1985

  7. [1995]

    does not hold for the types of CT imaging considered in the present paper, which is again explained by the mathematical ill-posedness of CT reconstruction; see also a related discussion in (Gureyev et al., 2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [2000]

    In particular, 2 ,, ()RR Wd = qq , where , ()RW  q is the NPS of () r 38 reconstructed from a PB-CT scan collected at z = R

    that the noise variance is equal to the integral of noise power spectrum (NPS). In particular, 2 ,, ()RR Wd = qq , where , ()RW  q is the NPS of () r 38 reconstructed from a PB-CT scan collected at z = R. An explicit expression for , ()RW  q can be obtained in conjunction with eq.(6), in the case of a PB-CT scan with aM projections uniformly distri...

    work page 2014

Show all 10 references
  1. [4120]

    & Gureyev, T.E

    Baran, P., Pacile, S., Nesterets, Y.I., Mayo, S.C., Dullin, C., Dreossi, D., Arfelli, F., Thompson, D., Lockie, D., McCormack, M., Taba, S.T., Brun, F., Pinamonti, M., Nickson, C., Hall, C., Dimmock, M., Zanconati, F., Cholewa, M., Quiney, H., Brennan, P.C., Tromba, G. & Gurey...

    2017

  2. [7890]

    G., Quiney, H.M

    Gureyev, T.E., Brown, H. G., Quiney, H.M. & Allen, L.J. (2022). J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 39, C143-C155. 35 Gureyev, T.E., Paganin, D.M. & Quiney, H.M. (2024). J. Synchrotron Rad., 31, 896-909. Higgins, P.D., Attix, F.H., Hubbell, J.H and Seltzer, S.W., Berger, M.J. & Sibata, C.H. (1...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.