Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30851015›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical optics2019

Optical phantoms for biomedical polarimetry: a review.

Joseph Chue-Sang, Mariacarla Gonzalez, Angie Pierre, Megan Laughrey, Ilyas Saytashev, Tatiana Novikova, Jessica C Ramella-Roman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical optics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. ImprovedJournal of biomedical optics · 2023
    Article
  15. Spatial frequency domain Mueller matrix imaging.Journal of biomedical optics · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph Chue-SangFlorida International University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Miami, Florida, United States.
Mariacarla GonzalezFlorida International University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Miami, Florida, United States.
Angie PierreFlorida International University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Miami, Florida, United States.
Megan LaughreyFlorida International University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Miami, Florida, United States.
Ilyas SaytashevFlorida International University, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, Florida, United States.
Tatiana NovikovaLPICM Laboratoire de Physique des Interfaces et Couches Minces, CNRS, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France.
Jessica C Ramella-RomanFlorida International University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Miami, Florida, United States.
Florida International University · USÉcole Polytechnique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calibration, quantification, and standardization of the polarimetric instrumentation, as well as interpretation and understanding of the obtained data, require the development and use of well-calibrated phantoms and standards. We reviewed the status of tissue phantoms for a variety of applications in polarimetry; more than 500 papers are considered. We divided the phantoms into five groups according to their origin (biological/nonbiological) and fundamental polarimetric properties of retardation, depolarization, and diattenuation. We found that, while biological media are generally depolarizing, retarding, and diattenuating, only one of all the phantoms reviewed incorporated all these properties, and few considered at least combined retardation and depolarization. Samples derived from biological tissue, such as tendon and muscle, remain extremely popular to quickly ascertain a polarimetric system, but do not provide quantifiable results aside from relative direction of their principal optical axis. Microspheres suspensions are the most utilized phantoms for depolarization, and combined with theoretical models can offer true quantification of depolarization or degree of polarization. There is a real paucity of birefringent phantoms despite the retardance being one of the most interesting parameters measurable with polarization techniques. Therefore, future work should be directed at generating truly reliable and repeatable phantoms for this metric determination. Diattenuating phantoms are rare and application-specific. Given that diattenuation is considered to be low in most biological tissues, the lack of such phantoms is seen as less problematic. The heterogeneity of the phantoms reviewed points to a critical need for standardization in this field. Ultimately, all research groups involved in polarimetric studies and instruments development would benefit from sharing a limited set of standardized polarimetric phantoms, as is done earlier in the round robin investigations in ellipsometry.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingScattering, RadiationAnisotropyMicrospheresOptical Imaginganisotropydepolarizationdiattenuationpolarizationretardationscatteringtissue phantoms

Identifiers

PMID30851015
PMCPMC6975228
OpenAlexW2921883462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.