ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2016
Seeing Through the Surface: Non-invasive Characterization of Biomaterial-Tissue Interactions Using Photoacoustic Microscopy.
Review in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nontoxic Fluorescent Nanoprobes for Multiplexed Detection and 3D Imaging of Tumor Markers in Breast Cancer.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Photoacoustic imaging for the study of oxygen saturation and total hemoglobin in bone healing and non-union formation.Photoacoustics · 2022Article
- The vascularization paradox of non-union formation.Angiogenesis · 2022Review
- Photoacoustic imaging of 3D-printed vascular networks.Biofabrication · 2022Article
- Photoacoustic Imaging in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2020Review
- Imaging Biomaterial-Tissue Interactions.Trends in biotechnology · 2018Review
- Breakthroughs in modern cancer therapy and elusive cardiotoxicity: Critical research-practice gaps, challenges, and insights.Medicinal research reviews · 2018Review
- Inverse Opal Scaffolds and Their Biomedical Applications.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2017Review
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
At the intersection of life sciences, materials science, engineering, and medicine, regenerative medicine stands out as a rapidly progressing field that aims at retaining, restoring, or augmenting tissue/organ functions to promote the human welfare. While the field has witnessed tremendous advancements over the past few decades, it still faces many challenges. For example, it has been difficult to visualize, monitor, and assess the functions of the engineered tissue/organ constructs, particularly when three-dimensional scaffolds are involved. Conventional approaches based on histology are invasive and therefore only convey end-point assays. The development of volumetric imaging techniques such as confocal and ultrasonic imaging has enabled direct observation of intact constructs without the need of sectioning. However, the capability of these techniques is often limited in terms of penetration depth and contrast. In comparison, the recently developed photoacoustic microscopy (PAM) has allowed us to address these issues by integrating optical and ultrasonic imaging to greatly reduce the effect of tissue scattering of photons with one-way ultrasound detection while retaining the high optical absorption contrast. PAM has been successfully applied to a number of studies, such as observation of cell distribution, monitoring of vascularization, and interrogation of biomaterial degradation. In this review article, we highlight recent progress in non-invasive and volumetric characterization of biomaterial-tissue interactions using PAM. We also discuss challenges ahead and envision future directions.
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.