ArticleBiomedical optics express2012
A liquid optical phantom with tissue-like heterogeneities for confocal microscopy.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a dynamic pulsatile phantom for the photoplethysmographic waveform at the radial artery.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
- Article
- Simulating orientation and polarization characteristics of dense fibrous tissue by electrostatic spinning of polymeric fibers.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
- Optical-sectioning microscopy of protoporphyrin IX fluorescence in human gliomas: standardization and quantitative comparison with histology.Journal of biomedical optics · 2017Article
- Bessel-beam illumination in dual-axis confocal microscopy mitigates resolution degradation caused by refractive heterogeneities.Journal of biophotonics · 2017Article
- Assessing the imaging performance of light sheet microscopies in highly scattering tissues.Biomedical optics express · 2016Article
- Fractal propagation method enables realistic optical microscopy simulations in biological tissues.Optica · 2016Article
- Characterizing the beam steering and distortion of Gaussian and Bessel beams focused in tissues with microscopic heterogeneities.Biomedical optics express · 2015Article
- Modulated-alignment dual-axis (MAD) confocal microscopy for deep optical sectioning in tissues.Biomedical optics express · 2014Article
- Comparison of line-scanned and point-scanned dual-axis confocal microscope performance.Optics letters · 2013Article
- Optimizing the performance of dual-axis confocal microscopes via Monte-Carlo scattering simulations and diffraction theory.Journal of biomedical optics · 2013Article
- Zirconia dental implants degradation by confocal Raman microspectroscopy: analytical simulation and experiments.Biomedical optics express · 2013Article
- A scattering phantom for observing long range order with two-dimensional angle-resolved Low-Coherence Interferometry.Biomedical optics express · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phantoms play an important role in the development, standardization, and calibration of biomedical imaging devices in laboratory and clinical settings, serving as standards to assess the performance of such devices. Here we present the design of a liquid optical phantom to facilitate the assessment of optical-sectioning microscopes that are being developed to enable point-of-care pathology. This phantom, composed of silica microbeads in an Intralipid base, is specifically designed to characterize a reflectance-based dual-axis confocal (DAC) microscope for skin imaging. The phantom mimics the scattering properties of normal human epithelial tissue in terms of an effective scattering coefficient and a depth-dependent degradation in spatial resolution due to beam steering caused by tissue micro-architectural heterogeneities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.