ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2013
Optimizing the performance of dual-axis confocal microscopes via Monte-Carlo scattering simulations and diffraction theory.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance tradeoffs for single- and dual-objective open-top light-sheet microscope designs: a simulation-based analysis.Biomedical optics express · 2020Article
- Label-free in vivo pathology of human epithelia with a high-speed handheld dual-axis confocal microscope.Journal of biomedical optics · 2019Article
- Dual-axis optical coherence tomography for deep tissue imaging.Optics letters · 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
- Video-rate in vivo fluorescence imaging with a line-scanned dual-axis confocal microscope.Journal of biomedical optics · 2015Article
- Characterizing the beam steering and distortion of Gaussian and Bessel beams focused in tissues with microscopic heterogeneities.Biomedical optics express · 2015Article
- Sheet-scanned dual-axis confocal microscopy using Richardson-Lucy deconvolution.Optics letters · 2014Article
- Comparison of line-scanned and point-scanned dual-axis confocal microscope performance.Optics letters · 2013Article
- Dual-axis confocal microscopy for point-of-care pathology.IEEE journal of selected topics in quantum electronics : a publication of the IEEE Lasers and Electro-optics SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dual-axis confocal (DAC) microscopy has been found to exhibit superior rejection of out-of-focus and multiply scattered background light compared to conventional single-axis confocal microscopy. DAC microscopes rely on the use of separated illumination and collection beam paths that focus and intersect at a single focal volume (voxel) within tissue. While it is generally recognized that the resolution and contrast of a DAC microscope depends on both the crossing angle of the DAC beams, 2θ, and the focusing numerical aperture of the individual beams, α, a detailed study to investigate these dependencies has not been performed. Contrast and resolution are considered as two main criteria to assess the performance of a point-scanned DAC microscope (DAC-PS) and a line-scanned DAC microscope (DAC-LS) as a function of θ and α. The contrast and resolution of these designs are evaluated by Monte-Carlo scattering simulations and diffraction theory calculations, respectively. These results can be used for guiding the optimal designs of DAC-PS and DAC-LS microscopes.
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.