ReviewJournal of microscopy2014
Motion compensation for in vivo subcellular optical microscopy.
Review in Journal of microscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiphoton intravital microscopy in small animals: motion artefact challenges and technical solutions.Journal of microscopy · 2020Review
- A bird's-eye view of deep learning in bioimage analysis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Analyzing Structure and Function of Vascularization in Engineered Bone Tissue by Video-Rate Intravital Microscopy and 3D Image Processing.Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 2015Article
- Use of independent component analysis to improve signal-to-noise ratio in multi-probe fluorescence microscopy.Journal of microscopy · 2014Article
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
In this review, we focus on the impact of tissue motion on attempting to conduct subcellular resolution optical microscopy, in vivo. Our position is that tissue motion is one of the major barriers in conducting these studies along with light induced damage, optical probe loading as well as absorbing and scattering effects on the excitation point spread function and collection of emitted light. Recent developments in the speed of image acquisition have reached the limit, in most cases, where the signal from a subcellular voxel limits the speed and not the scanning rate of the microscope. Different schemes for compensating for tissue displacements due to rigid body and deformation are presented from tissue restriction, gating, adaptive gating and active tissue tracking. We argue that methods that minimally impact the natural physiological motion of the tissue are desirable because the major reason to perform in vivo studies is to evaluate normal physiological functions. Towards this goal, active tracking using the optical imaging data itself to monitor tissue displacement and either prospectively or retrospectively correct for the motion without affecting physiological processes is desirable. Critical for this development was the implementation of near real time image processing in conjunction with the control of the microscope imaging parameters. Clearly, the continuing development of methods of motion compensation as well as significant technological solutions to the other barriers to tissue subcellular optical imaging in vivo, including optical aberrations and overall signal-to-noise ratio, will make major contributions to the understanding of cell biology within the body.
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.