Review



mex interface  (MathWorks Inc)


Bioz Verified Symbol MathWorks Inc is a verified supplier  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
  • 90

    Structured Review

    MathWorks Inc mex interface
    Mex Interface, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/mex+interface/10__1016_slash_j__automatica__2025__112382-92-4-3
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    mex interface - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars

    Images

    Related Articles

    other:

    Article Title: An algorithm for distributed time delay identification without a priori knowledge of the kernel
    Article Snippet: Specifically, we use Matlab’s MEX interface, and we implement an ESDIRK34 method (see, e.g., Kristensen et al., 2004) in C with fixed time step sizes in order to approximate the solution to the initial value problem combining (12b)–(12c) and (17).

    Article Title: MCR toolkit: A GPU-based toolkit for multi-channel reconstruction of preclinical and clinical x-ray CT data.
    Article Snippet: Funding information National Institute on Aging, Grant/Award Numbers: RF1AG070149, RF1AG070149-01S1; National Cancer Institute, Grant/Award Number: U24CA220245; National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, Grant/Award Numbers: R01EB001838, P41EB028744 Abstract Background: The advancement of x-ray CT into the domains of photon counting spectral imaging and dynamic cardiac and perfusion imaging has created many new challenges and opportunities for clinicians and researchers.. To address challenges such as dose constraints and scanning times while capitalizing on opportunities such as multi-contrast imaging and low-dose coronary angiography, these multi-channel imaging applications require a new generation of CT reconstruction tools.These new tools should exploit the relationships between imaging channels during reconstruction to set new image quality standards while serving as a platform for direct translation between the preclinical and clinical domains.. Purpose: We outline and demonstrate a new Multi-Channel Reconstruction (MCR) Toolkit for GPU-based analytical and iterative reconstruction of preclinical and clinical multi-energy and dynamic x-ray CT data.

    Article Title: Global nonlinear approach for mapping parameters of neural mass models
    Article Snippet: The model was run using MATLAB’s MEX interface [ ].

    Article Title: Image processing tools for petabyte-scale light sheet microscopy data.
    Article Snippet: This code is also integrated with MATLAB through the MEX interface.

    Article Title: Image processing tools for petabyte-scale light sheet microscopy data
    Article Snippet: The Tiff reader and writer leverage the capabilities of the libtiff library in C++ with the MATLAB MEX interface for MATLAB.

    Article Title: preCICE v2: A sustainable and user-friendly coupling library
    Article Snippet: MATLAB bindings are based on the MEX interface and Julia bindings are currently in the prototype phase.

    Article Title: An algorithm for distributed time delay identification without a priori knowledge of the kernel
    Article Snippet: Finally, we use Matlab’s MEX interface, and we implement the numerical method described in Appendix B and the associated sensitivity computations in C.

    Transformation Assay:

    Article Title: Facilitating multidisciplinary collaboration through a versatile level-set topology optimization framework via COMSOL multiphysics
    Article Snippet: Topology optimization is an engineering design methodology that optimizes designs by manipulating material distribution.. Level-set topology optimization (LSTO), a boundary-based method, has gained popularity for its crisp description of the design and natural handling of the topological changes during the optimization.. However, its availability in commercial or open-source software is limited, and the entry barrier to LSTO could be considered high.



    Similar Products

    90
    MathWorks Inc mex interface
    Mex Interface, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/mex+interface/10__1016_slash_j__automatica__2025__112382-92-4-3
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    mex interface - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    MathWorks Inc c++ embedded via the mex interface into
    C++ Embedded Via The Mex Interface Into, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/mex+interface/10__21468_slash_scipostphyscodeb__40-2-1-9
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    c++ embedded via the mex interface into - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Blackrock Microsystems LLC mex interface
    Mex Interface, supplied by Blackrock Microsystems LLC, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/mex+interface/mex+interface/bio_rxiv__2024__11__03__621745-276-15-23
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    mex interface - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    MathWorks Inc matlab mex interface
    a – b , run times of Tiff readers and writers <t>for</t> <t>libtiff</t> <t>(MATLAB),</t> tifffile (Python), and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of frames. c – d , run times of Zarr readers and writers, comparing the MATLAB interface of Zarr, native Zarr (Python), and Cpp-Zarr across different numbers of frames. In panels a-d , all images are in unit16 format with a frame size of 512 × 1,800 (xy), and the benchmark results are the absolute run times for Fig. . e – f , run times of Tiff readers and writers for libtiff (MATLAB) and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. g – h , run times of Zarr readers and writers for the MATLAB interface of Zarr, and Cpp-Zarr versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. i – k , data size and read/write times versus compression level for lz4 and zstd compressors for a uint16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 30,000. The benchmarks were run ten times independently on a 24-core CPU computing node (dual Intel Xeon Gold 6146 CPUs). All 24 cores were allocated for panels a – d and i – k , and varying numbers of CPU cores were allocated for panels e – h . Data are shown as mean ± s.d. in panels a – h and j – k .
    Matlab Mex Interface, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/mex+interface/pmc11621031-195-14-14
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    matlab mex interface - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    MathWorks Inc executable (mex) interface
    a – b , run times of Tiff readers and writers <t>for</t> <t>libtiff</t> <t>(MATLAB),</t> tifffile (Python), and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of frames. c – d , run times of Zarr readers and writers, comparing the MATLAB interface of Zarr, native Zarr (Python), and Cpp-Zarr across different numbers of frames. In panels a-d , all images are in unit16 format with a frame size of 512 × 1,800 (xy), and the benchmark results are the absolute run times for Fig. . e – f , run times of Tiff readers and writers for libtiff (MATLAB) and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. g – h , run times of Zarr readers and writers for the MATLAB interface of Zarr, and Cpp-Zarr versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. i – k , data size and read/write times versus compression level for lz4 and zstd compressors for a uint16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 30,000. The benchmarks were run ten times independently on a 24-core CPU computing node (dual Intel Xeon Gold 6146 CPUs). All 24 cores were allocated for panels a – d and i – k , and varying numbers of CPU cores were allocated for panels e – h . Data are shown as mean ± s.d. in panels a – h and j – k .
    Executable (Mex) Interface, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/mex+interface/pm38671144-57-3-2
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    executable (mex) interface - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    a – b , run times of Tiff readers and writers for libtiff (MATLAB), tifffile (Python), and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of frames. c – d , run times of Zarr readers and writers, comparing the MATLAB interface of Zarr, native Zarr (Python), and Cpp-Zarr across different numbers of frames. In panels a-d , all images are in unit16 format with a frame size of 512 × 1,800 (xy), and the benchmark results are the absolute run times for Fig. . e – f , run times of Tiff readers and writers for libtiff (MATLAB) and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. g – h , run times of Zarr readers and writers for the MATLAB interface of Zarr, and Cpp-Zarr versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. i – k , data size and read/write times versus compression level for lz4 and zstd compressors for a uint16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 30,000. The benchmarks were run ten times independently on a 24-core CPU computing node (dual Intel Xeon Gold 6146 CPUs). All 24 cores were allocated for panels a – d and i – k , and varying numbers of CPU cores were allocated for panels e – h . Data are shown as mean ± s.d. in panels a – h and j – k .

    Journal: Nature Methods

    Article Title: Image processing tools for petabyte-scale light sheet microscopy data

    doi: 10.1038/s41592-024-02475-4

    Figure Lengend Snippet: a – b , run times of Tiff readers and writers for libtiff (MATLAB), tifffile (Python), and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of frames. c – d , run times of Zarr readers and writers, comparing the MATLAB interface of Zarr, native Zarr (Python), and Cpp-Zarr across different numbers of frames. In panels a-d , all images are in unit16 format with a frame size of 512 × 1,800 (xy), and the benchmark results are the absolute run times for Fig. . e – f , run times of Tiff readers and writers for libtiff (MATLAB) and Cpp-Tiff versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. g – h , run times of Zarr readers and writers for the MATLAB interface of Zarr, and Cpp-Zarr versus the number of CPU cores for a unit16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 20,000. i – k , data size and read/write times versus compression level for lz4 and zstd compressors for a uint16 image stack of size 512 × 1,800 × 30,000. The benchmarks were run ten times independently on a 24-core CPU computing node (dual Intel Xeon Gold 6146 CPUs). All 24 cores were allocated for panels a – d and i – k , and varying numbers of CPU cores were allocated for panels e – h . Data are shown as mean ± s.d. in panels a – h and j – k .

    Article Snippet: Our Tiff reader/writer leverages the capabilities of the libtiff library in C++ with the MATLAB MEX interface.

    Techniques:

    a , Performance gains of our Cpp-Tiff reader versus the conventional Tiff reader in MATLAB and tifffile reader in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. b , Performance gains of Cpp-Tiff writer versus the conventional Tiff writer in MATLAB and the tifffile writer in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. c , Performance gains of our Cpp-Zarr reader versus the conventional Zarr reader (MATLAB interface of Zarr) and native Zarr in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. d , Performance gains of Cpp-Zarr writers versus the conventional Zarr writer (MATLAB interface of Zarr) and native Zarr in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. The images have a uint16 frame size of 512 × 1,800 ( xy ) in all cases. The benchmarks were run independently ten times on a 24-core CPU computing node (dual Intel Xeon Gold 6146 CPUs). Data are shown as the mean ± s.d.

    Journal: Nature Methods

    Article Title: Image processing tools for petabyte-scale light sheet microscopy data

    doi: 10.1038/s41592-024-02475-4

    Figure Lengend Snippet: a , Performance gains of our Cpp-Tiff reader versus the conventional Tiff reader in MATLAB and tifffile reader in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. b , Performance gains of Cpp-Tiff writer versus the conventional Tiff writer in MATLAB and the tifffile writer in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. c , Performance gains of our Cpp-Zarr reader versus the conventional Zarr reader (MATLAB interface of Zarr) and native Zarr in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. d , Performance gains of Cpp-Zarr writers versus the conventional Zarr writer (MATLAB interface of Zarr) and native Zarr in Python versus the number of frames in 3D stacks. The images have a uint16 frame size of 512 × 1,800 ( xy ) in all cases. The benchmarks were run independently ten times on a 24-core CPU computing node (dual Intel Xeon Gold 6146 CPUs). Data are shown as the mean ± s.d.

    Article Snippet: Our Tiff reader/writer leverages the capabilities of the libtiff library in C++ with the MATLAB MEX interface.

    Techniques: