I can find very little in the literature about the use of CT for examining slide mounted specimens. This is obviously very important because of the number of slide mounted type specimens out there. Confocal is often not effective for examining slide mounted type specimens because of autofluorescence and bleaching. Is CT simply no good for slide mounted specimens, or this a neglected field of research. I have little idea as my background is largely conventional microscopy and confocal. And if anyone does know of any literature on this topic, can they please point me to it. Thanks very much in advance.
no, CT is a 3D imaging technique and would have little value in a "flat" specimen. In a planar specimen, x-ray could be performed if the material had some x-ray attenuation component.
I have to disagree about the value of CT. Slide mounted specimens still have 3D structure. Confocal 3D modeling would be useful with these specimens if it worked properly. But as I mentioned above, confocal fails for other reasons and not because slide mounted specimens are completely flat.
Remember, Yueh, I am talking about type specimens. Any additional information we can get out of them, even when flattened, is very useful.
I have been involved in a number of projects that wanted to use micro-NMR imaging (micro-MRI) or micro-CT systems to look at mounted specimens. I think the many reasons these projects didn't go anywhere was the cost compared to what was learned. Even if you assume the cost of slide prep and screening the slices as part of existing programs, the additional imaging is a significant additional cost.
NMR would likely be a better modality given the nature of the samples. If the primary concern is looking for micro-calcifications would be when CT would be the modality to use.
Are you talking about microscopy mounted slides or actual physical specimens greater than a few millimeters thick? X-ray attenuation will barely exist through something that small and it may be challenging for other technical reasons. As Dr. Thoma mentioned, cost vs. gain of information is also out of balance. If you are asking about "3D imaging", then there are other ways to obtain 3D information from specimens. Relying on electron density differences may not be the best approach for your goal. That being said - go ahead and try it! I'd be happy to learn from you.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators