Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Single-Shot, Single-Mask X-ray Dark-field and Phase Contrast Imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single absorption mask, aligned to the detector pixels in three different ways, retrieves attenuation, differential phase, and dark-field images from a single X-ray exposure.

desk verdict Plausible single-mask multi-contrast X-ray extension, but the dark-field retrieval actually outputs S/(1-L), not S, so the quantitative claims need a correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02427 v1 pith:GK2R5UX6 submitted 2025-06-03 physics.med-ph physics.app-phphysics.ins-detphysics.optics

Jingcheng Yuan , Mini Das This is my paper
classification physics.med-phphysics.app-phphysics.ins-detphysics.optics
keywords X-rayphasecontrastimagingdark-fieldsingle-masklighttransportmodelofintensityequationFokker-Plancksingle-shotretrievallow-resolutiondetector
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 claims that a single absorbing mask placed between source and sample can split one X-ray exposure into three independent contrast channels—attenuation, differential phase, and dark-field (ultra-small-angle scattering)—using a detector with pixel size comparable to clinical detectors. The trick is a specific geometric alignment between the projected mask pattern and the detector pixels: with mask period of two pixels, beamlets aligned to pixel boundaries give differential phase, beamlets aligned to pixel centers give dark-field, and a three-pixel period configuration gives both. The paper derives retrieval formulas from a light-transport model built on the transport-of-intensity equation plus a Fokker-Planck scattering term, and demonstrates experimentally on phantoms and a dried fish. If correct, it removes the usual requirements for coherent sources, high-resolution detectors, gratings, and multiple exposures, lowering the barrier to clinical and industrial multi-contrast X-ray imaging.

What carries the argument

The light-transport model starts from the transport-of-intensity equation and augments it with a Fokker-Planck scattering term, yielding an expression for the intensity at pixel n as a combination of the object transmission T, the differential phase D, the Laplacian phase L, and the dark-field scattering S, weighted by integrals of the mask transmission M and its derivatives. When the mask period is matched to the pixel grid, these integrals collapse into a few constant coefficients (w_e, alpha, alpha1, alpha2, alpha3), so each measured pixel intensity becomes a linear combination of the sample signals. The retrieval formulas then invert these combinations using flat-field-corrected sums and differences of adjacent pixels, which separates the channels because the mask alignment makes the phase and scattering terms appear with opposite signs or in different pixels.

What would settle it

Take a sample with a sharp sub-pixel gradient of scattering or phase across the mask period, or deliberately shift the mask by a fraction of a pixel, then check whether the retrieved dark-field and differential-phase images change in ways the formulas do not predict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that all three contrast mechanisms—attenuation, differential phase, and dark-field—can be encoded in a single detector image by choosing the alignment of the projected mask period relative to the pixel array, and then decoded by linear combinations of flat-field-corrected neighboring pixel intensities. In the DPC configuration the mask period equals two pixels and beamlets straddle pixel boundaries; in the DF configuration the period is again two pixels but beamlets hit pixel centers; in the DF-DPC configuration the period is three pixels, giving two bright pixels that carry phase and one dark pixel that carries scattering. For each configuration the paper derives a per-pixel intensity formula (Equations 7, 9, and 11) from the light-transport model and the corresponding retrieval (Equations 8, 10, and 12), with mask-dependent coefficients that set the sensitivity of each channel. Experimental single-shot retrievals on a multi-material phantom and a dried fish show the three channels separating materials that look identical in attenuation.

Load-bearing premise

The retrieval assumes the projected mask period lands exactly on two or three detector pixels and that transmission, phase, and scattering are nearly constant within each pixel group; if local gradients or mask-detector drift break that assumption, the three channels mix and no tolerance is quantified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single exposure on a polychromatic, low-coherence source yields separate attenuation, differential phase, and dark-field images, with no spectral or high-resolution detector needed.
  • The same physical mask serves all three configurations; only its position changes, so one system can switch between DPC, DF, and combined modes without replacing optics.
  • Dark-field signal in the DF configuration stays nearly constant as focal spot grows from 7 to 50 micrometers, unlike DPC signal which the authors' earlier work shows decreases, making the method compatible with higher-power sources.
  • The DF-DPC configuration offers both phase and dark-field in one shot at the price of lower dark-field contrast than the dedicated DF configuration.
  • Retrieved dark-field intensity is insensitive to grain sizes below 0.25 micrometers and above 50 micrometers in the diamond-powder test, with peak sensitivity around 0.25 to 3 micrometers, indicating a feature-size-selective contrast.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the formulas only use sums and differences of neighboring pixels, the method could in principle be extended to N-pixel mask periods to trade channel sensitivity or to add higher-order signals; the paper does not explore this.
  • The paper does not quantify what happens when the mask period is not an exact integer multiple of the pixel pitch; a natural extension would be an alignment-error calibration or a retrieval that fits mask coefficients per image.
  • The dark-field signal's insensitivity to focal spot size suggests the method could work with rotating-anode sources at much higher power, which would improve exposure times; this is not tested here.
  • A practical translation would require periodic recalibration of the flat-field mask image, since detector or source drift changes the coefficients; the paper leaves this engineering question open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a single-mask X-ray imaging approach aiming to retrieve attenuation, differential phase, and dark-field contrast from a single exposure using a relatively low-resolution detector. Three configurations are proposed, with projected mask periods of two or three detector pixels. The authors derive intensity models based on a transport-of-intensity and Fokker-Planck framework, and present retrieval formulas for each configuration. Experimental images of a multi-material phantom and of diamond powders with different grain sizes demonstrate the three configurations. The paper claims that the method provides quantitative material information and can simplify clinical and industrial multi-contrast X-ray imaging.

Significance. If the quantitative retrieval were correct, this would be a valuable simplification of multi-contrast X-ray imaging, using one absorption mask, a conventional polychromatic source, and a detector with clinical-scale pixels. The experimental demonstrations are plausible and the model transparently builds on established equations. However, the central retrieval formulas are not correctly derived: the dark-field and DPC channels are shown to be divided by (1-L), where L is the Laplacian phase term, and no independent retrieval of L is provided. This undermines the quantitative separation claim. The paper also lacks error analysis, misalignment tolerance, and quantitative validation. The concept remains promising, and the qualitative images support feasibility, but the quantitative claims require revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (10)] Substituting Eq. (9) into the dark-field retrieval line and assuming T, L, S are constant over the two-pixel group gives (α3/α1) S_n = 1 - [(2α1 T(1-L) - 2α3 T S)/(2α1)] * [(2w_e)/(2w_e T(1-L))] = (α3/α1) S/(1-L), not (α3/α1) S. The same 1/(1-L) factor appears in the DPC retrieval of Eq. (8) and in both the DPC and DF lines of Eq. (12). Because L = (z/k)∇²⊥φ is nonzero wherever the phase has curvature (edges, interfaces, curved objects), the retrieved dark-field and phase channels are contaminated by the attenuation-independent Laplacian phase term. Since L is not separately measured in the DF and DPC configurations, the claim of quantitative, independent multi-contrast retrieval is not established. Please provide a corrected formula, an iterative scheme to estimate L, or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims to the small-L regime with error bounds.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (6) to Eqs. (7), (9), (11)] The passage from the integral model to the pixel-intensity formulas is not shown. The coefficients w_e, α, α1, α2, α3 are defined verbally as mask parameters, but the integrals of M(x), M'(x), and M''(x) over the pixel intervals are not evaluated for any of the three alignments. Without this derivation, the reader cannot verify the sign conventions or the relative magnitudes of the coefficients, both of which determine the retrieval formulas. Please provide the intermediate steps or a table of the integrated mask functions.
  3. [Throughout Section 3] The retrieval formulas assume the projected mask period is exactly two or three detector pixels and that the mask-to-pixel alignment is exact. No misalignment tolerance or error propagation is given. Even small sub-pixel shifts would mix the sum and difference channels in Eqs. (10) and (12). Since the paper's central practical claim is simplicity and robustness with a single alignment, the authors should quantify how the retrieved T, D, and S degrade with alignment errors (e.g., simulated shifts) and with realistic detector modulation transfer. At minimum, a noise and bias analysis is needed.
  4. [Section 4] The experimental validation is qualitative. The multi-material phantom and the diamond-powder phantom demonstrate that the retrieved images exhibit contrast, but no error bars, no calibrated measurements against known scattering strength or phase gradient, and no comparison with an established technique are provided. To support the statements about 'quantitative material classification' (Section 1 and Conclusion), the paper needs a test with a reference sample of known USAXS properties and a quantitative comparison of the retrieved values. Without such a test, the results support feasibility but not quantitative accuracy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'There multiple image features' appears to be a typo; it should read 'These multiple image features'.
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 10 caption] 'Fib. 10c' should be 'Fig. 10c'.
  3. [Methods] 'sensor thicknes' is a typo for 'sensor thickness'.
  4. [Section 3] The term 'single-shot' should be clarified: the retrieval uses a mask-only flat-field image I^M for normalization, so the method requires a calibration exposure in addition to the sample exposure. The paper should state this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the retrieval formulas are algebraic inversions of an externally grounded forward model, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's forward model (Eq. 6) is obtained by substituting I(r,0)=T(r)M(x) into the transport-of-intensity equation (Eq. 1) and the independently cited X-ray Fokker-Planck equation (Eq. 2, Ref. [27]), with the slowly-varying assumptions stated in the text. The three retrieval sets (Eqs. 8, 10, 12) are algebraic rearrangements of the corresponding forward pixel equations (Eqs. 7, 9, 11), not fits to the phantom images; the mask coefficients w_e, alpha, alpha1, alpha2, alpha3 enter as geometric properties of the mask transmission function, and no parameter is tuned to the displayed data before retrieval. The citations to the authors' previous work [24]-[26] describe the pre-existing DPC configuration and are not load-bearing for the new dark-field and DF-DPC results: the relevant forward equations and retrieval formulas are reproduced in this paper, and the new configurations are derived from the same stated model plus the external Fokker-Planck equation. The skeptic's algebraic observation that Eq. (10) returns (alpha3/alpha1) S/(1-L) rather than S when the Laplacian term L is nonzero is a correctness or cross-talk concern within the forward model; it is not an instance of the paper's output being equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard light-transport approximations plus exact geometric alignment of mask and detector pixels. The mask coefficients appear as uncalibrated sensitivity parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Mask coefficients we, alpha (DPC); we, alpha1, alpha3 (DF); we, alpha1, alpha2, alpha3 (DF-DPC) = Not reported
    Retrieval equations (8), (10), (12) require these sensitivity coefficients; outputs are only scaled relative images unless values are calibrated. The paper does not provide measured values or a calibration procedure.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The transport-of-intensity equation (Eq. 1) and X-ray Fokker-Planck equation (Eq. 2) accurately describe intensity evolution for the polychromatic, partially coherent source used.
    Eqs. (1)-(3) are adopted from [27,28] as the starting light transport model; no coherence or spectral validity check for the 15-60 keV polychromatic source is provided.
  • domain assumption T(r), phi(r), and S(r) vary slowly enough over each detector pixel group that they can be evaluated at pixel centers and pulled out of the integrals in Eq. (6).
    The step from Eq. (6) to the closed-form pixel equations (7), (9), (11) requires this slow-variation approximation; no validation or error analysis is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The projected mask pattern period is exactly twice (DPC/DF) or three times (DF-DPC) the detector pixel size, and the beamlet-to-pixel alignment is exact.
    The alternating pixel patterns and all retrieval formulas depend on this exact geometric alignment; no tolerance or misalignment sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark-field retrieval in DF-DPC is separable from differential phase, i.e., D and S do not vary significantly within each three-pixel group.
    Eq. (12) forms sums and differences of neighboring pixels assuming D and S are locally constant; any local gradient mixes DPC and DF signals.
  • domain assumption The retrieved signals remain valid under polychromatic illumination without spectral weighting in the model.
    The derivation uses a single wave number k, while experiments use a 40-60 kV polychromatic tube; spectral effects are shown only empirically in Fig. 9, not incorporated in the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-Shot, Single-Mask X-ray Dark-field and Phase Contrast Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GK2R5UX6

@misc{pith2026250602427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-Shot, Single-Mask X-ray Dark-field and Phase Contrast Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GK2R5UX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02427}
}
read the original abstract

X-ray imaging, traditionally relying on attenuation contrast, struggles to differentiate materials with similar attenuation coefficients like soft tissues. X-ray phase contrast imaging (XPCI) and dark-field (DF) imaging provide enhanced contrast by detecting phase shifts and ultra-small-angle X-ray scattering (USAXS). However, they typically require complex and costly setups, along with multiple exposures to retrieve various contrast features. In this study, we introduce a novel single-mask X-ray imaging system design that simultaneously captures attenuation, differential phase contrast (DPC), and dark-field images in a single exposure. Most importantly, our proposed system design requires just a single mask alignment with relatively low-resolution detectors. Using our novel light transport models derived for these specific system designs, we show intuitive understanding of contrast formation and retrieval method of different contrast features. Our approach eliminates the need for highly coherent X-ray sources, ultra-high-resolution detectors, spectral detectors or intricate gratings. We propose three variations of the single-mask setup, each optimized for different contrast types, offering flexibility and efficiency in a variety of applications. The versatility of this single-mask approach along with the use of befitting light transport models holds promise for broader use in clinical diagnostics and industrial inspection, making advanced X-ray imaging more accessible and cost-effective.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Optica 10(4), 422–429 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.480489

    Beltran, M.A., Paganin, D.M., Croughan, M.K., Morgan, K.S.: Fast implicit dif- fusive dark-field retrieval for single-exposure, single-mask x-ray imaging. Optica 10(4), 422–429 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.480489

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.480489 2023

  2. [1]

    Physics Today 53(7), 23–26 15 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1292471

    Fitzgerald, R.: Phase-Sensitive X-Ray Imaging. Physics Today 53(7), 23–26 15 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1292471

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1292471 2000

  3. [2]

    Physics in Medicine & Biology 49(16), 3573 (2004) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0031-9155/49/16/005

    Lewis, R.A.: Medical phase contrast x-ray imaging: Current status and future prospects. Physics in Medicine & Biology 49(16), 3573 (2004) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0031-9155/49/16/005

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/49/16/005 2004

  4. [3]

    The British Journal of Radiology 87(1034), 20130606 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130606

    Auweter, S.D., Herzen, J., Willner, M., Grandl, S., Scherer, K., Bamberg, F., Reiser, M.F., Pfeiffer, F., Hellerhoff, K.: X-ray phase-contrast imaging of the breast—advances towards clinical implementation. The British Journal of Radiology 87(1034), 20130606 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130606

    work page doi:10.1259/bjr.20130606 2014

  5. [4]

    Applied Sciences 11(7), 2971 (2021) https://doi

    Tao, S., He, C., Hao, X., Kuang, C., Liu, X.: Principles of Different X-ray Phase- Contrast Imaging: A Review. Applied Sciences 11(7), 2971 (2021) https://doi. org/10.3390/app11072971

    work page doi:10.3390/app11072971 2021

  6. [5]

    Applied Sciences 12(19), 9539 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/ app12199539

    Quenot, L., Bohic, S., Brun, E.: X-ray Phase Contrast Imaging from Synchrotron to Conventional Sources: A Review of the Existing Techniques for Biologi- cal Applications. Applied Sciences 12(19), 9539 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/ app12199539

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Applied Optics 50(22), 4310–4319 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.004310

    Lynch, S.K., Pai, V., Auxier, J., Stein, A.F., Bennett, E.E., Kemble, C.K., Xiao, X., Lee, W.-K., Morgan, N.Y., Wen, H.H.: Interpretation of dark-field contrast and particle-size selectivity in grating interferometers. Applied Optics 50(22), 4310–4319 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.004310

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.50.004310 2011

  8. [7]

    Nature 384(6607), 335–338 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1038/384335a0

    Wilkins, S.W., Gureyev, T.E., Gao, D., Pogany, A., Stevenson, A.W.: Phase- contrast imaging using polychromatic hard X-rays. Nature 384(6607), 335–338 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1038/384335a0

    doi:10.1038/384335a0 1996

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 9(3), 160–165 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1107/S090904950200554X

    Suzuki, Y., Yagi, N., Uesugi, K.: X-ray refraction-enhanced imaging and a method for phase retrieval for a simple object. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 9(3), 160–165 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1107/S090904950200554X

    2002 doi

  2. [9]

    Journal of Microscopy 206(1), 33–40 (2002) https://doi

    Paganin, D., Mayo, S.C., Gureyev, T.E., Miller, P.R., Wilkins, S.W.: Simul- taneous phase and amplitude extraction from a single defocused image of a homogeneous object. Journal of Microscopy 206(1), 33–40 (2002) https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1365-2818.2002.01010.x

    2002

  3. [10]

    Optics Express16(17), 13330 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.16.013330

    Yan, A., Wu, X., Liu, H.: An attenuation-partition based iterative phase retrieval algorithm for in-line phase-contrast imaging. Optics Express16(17), 13330 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.16.013330

    2008 doi

  4. [11]

    Optics Letters 38(9), 1461 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.38.001461

    G¨ ursoy, D., Das, M.: Single-step absorption and phase retrieval with poly- chromatic x rays using a spectral detector. Optics Letters 38(9), 1461 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.38.001461

    2013 doi

  5. [12]

    Optics Express 13(16), 6296–6304 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1364/OPEX.13.006296

    Weitkamp, T., Diaz, A., David, C., Pfeiffer, F., Stampanoni, M., Cloetens, P., 16 Ziegler, E.: X-ray phase imaging with a grating interferometer. Optics Express 13(16), 6296–6304 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1364/OPEX.13.006296

    2005 doi

  6. [13]

    Nature Physics 2(4), 258–261 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys265

    Pfeiffer, F., Weitkamp, T., Bunk, O., David, C.: Phase retrieval and differential phase-contrast imaging with low-brilliance X-ray sources. Nature Physics 2(4), 258–261 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys265

    2006 doi

  7. [14]

    Communications Medicine 2(1), 1–9 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-022-00215-3

    Frank, M., Gassert, F.T., Urban, T., Willer, K., Noichl, W., Schick, R., Schultheiss, M., Viermetz, M., Gleich, B., De Marco, F., Herzen, J., Koehler, T., Engel, K.J., Renger, B., Gassert, F.G., Sauter, A., Fingerle, A.A., Haller, B., Makowski, M.R., Pfeiffer, D., Pfeiffer, F....

    2022 doi

  8. [15]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(8), 2118799119 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas

    Viermetz, M., Gustschin, N., Schmid, C., Haeusele, J., von Teuffenbach, M., Meyer, P., Bergner, F., Lasser, T., Proksa, R., Koehler, T., Pfeiffer, F.: Dark- field computed tomography reaches the human scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(8), 2118799119 (2...

    2022 doi

  9. [16]

    Applied Physics Letters 100(12), 124102 (2012) https://doi.org/10

    Morgan, K.S., Paganin, D.M., Siu, K.K.W.: X-ray phase imaging with a paper analyzer. Applied Physics Letters 100(12), 124102 (2012) https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.3694918

    2012

  10. [17]

    In: Medical Imaging 2023: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol

    Pil-Ali, A., Shi, S.Q.Z., Adnani, S., No¨ el, P.B., Karim, K.S.: Multimodal single- shot x-ray phase-contrast imaging using a high-resolution micropillar-based grating. In: Medical Imaging 2023: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol. 12463, pp. 37–46. SPIE, ??? (2023). https://doi.o...

    2023 doi

  11. [18]

    In: Anomaly Detection and Imaging with X-Rays (ADIX), vol

    Petruccelli, J.C., Hayden, D., Starr-Baier, S., Tahir, S., Rehman, M.U., Hassan, L., MacDonald, C.A.: Phase and coherent scatter imaging for improved dis- crimination of low-density materials. In: Anomaly Detection and Imaging with X-Rays (ADIX), vol. 9847, pp. 47–55. SPIE, ??...

    2016

  12. [20]

    Applied Physics Letters 91(7), 074106 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2772193

    Olivo, A., Speller, R.: A coded-aperture technique allowing x-ray phase contrast imaging with conventional sources. Applied Physics Letters 91(7), 074106 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2772193

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33(36), 363002 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/ ac0e6e 17

    Olivo, A.: Edge-illumination x-ray phase-contrast imaging. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33(36), 363002 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/ ac0e6e 17

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Optics Letters 39(21), 6343 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.006343

    Das, M., Liang, Z.: Spectral x-ray phase contrast imaging for single-shot retrieval of absorption, phase, and differential-phase imagery. Optics Letters 39(21), 6343 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.006343

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Review of Scientific Instruments 81(11), 113702 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3499372

    Krejci, F., Jakubek, J., Kroupa, M.: Hard x-ray phase contrast imaging using single absorption grating and hybrid semiconductor pixel detector. Review of Scientific Instruments 81(11), 113702 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3499372

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    Optica 11(4), 478–484 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1364/ OPTICA.510537

    Yuan, J., Das, M.: Transport-of-intensity model for single-mask x-ray differential phase contrast imaging. Optica 11(4), 478–484 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1364/ OPTICA.510537

    2024

  17. [25]

    In: Medical Imaging 2022: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol

    Yuan, J., Harmon, I., Das, M.: Comparing SNR benefits of single-mask edge- illumination and free-space propagation x-ray phase contrast imaging. In: Medical Imaging 2022: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol. PC12031, p. 120310. SPIE, ??? (2022). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2613808

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    In: Medical Imaging 2024: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol

    Yuan, J., Harmon, I., Luna, J.C.R., Das, M.: Single-mask phase imaging micro- computed tomography with multi-contrast images and single-shot per projection angle. In: Medical Imaging 2024: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol. 12925, pp. 719–725. SPIE, ??? (2024). https://doi.org/1...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Scientific Reports 9(1), 17537 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-019-52284-5

    Paganin, D.M., Morgan, K.S.: X-ray Fokker–Planck equation for parax- ial imaging. Scientific Reports 9(1), 17537 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-019-52284-5

    2019

  20. [28]

    Optics and Lasers in Engineering 135, 106187 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng

    Zuo, C., Li, J., Sun, J., Fan, Y., Zhang, J., Lu, L., Zhang, R., Wang, B., Huang, L., Chen, Q.: Transport of intensity equation: A tutorial. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 135, 106187 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng. 2020.106187

    2020

  21. [29]

    Journal of Instrumentation 8(02), 02016 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/8/02/C02016

    Ballabriga, R., Alozy, J., Blaj, G., Campbell, M., Fiederle, M., Frojdh, E., Heijne, E.H.M., Llopart, X., Pichotka, M., Procz, S., Tlustos, L., Wong, W.: The Medipix3RX: A high resolution, zero dead-time pixel detector readout chip allowing spectroscopic imaging. Journal of In...

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    In: Medical Imaging 2015: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol

    Das, M., Kandel, B., Park, C.S., Liang, Z.: Energy calibration of photon counting detectors using x-ray tube potential as a reference for material decomposition applications. In: Medical Imaging 2015: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol. 9412, pp. 263–268. SPIE, ??? (2015). https:...

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38(4), 968–978 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2018.2875932 18

    Vespucci, S., Park, C.S., Torrico, R., Das, M.: Robust Energy Calibration Tech- nique for Photon Counting Spectral Detectors. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38(4), 968–978 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2018.2875932 18

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.