Review



executable (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
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    MathWorks Inc executable (mex) interface
    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

    Images

    Related Articles

    other:

    Article Title: Design and optimization of haze prediction model based on particle swarm optimization algorithm and graphics processor.
    Article Snippet: Utilizing the MATLAB Executable (MEX) interface, we seamlessly integrated our custom CUDA implementation with the MATLAB environment.



    Similar Products

    mex interface  (MathWorks Inc)
    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
    c++ embedded via the mex interface into  (MathWorks Inc)
    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
    mex interface  (Blackrock Microsystems LLC)
    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
    matlab mex interface  (MathWorks Inc)
    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
    executable (mex) interface  (MathWorks Inc)
    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: