ArticleJournal of imaging2019
Comparison of Piezoelectric and Optical Projection Imaging for Three-Dimensional In Vivo Photoacoustic Tomography.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2019. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design, implementation, and analysis of a compressed sensing photoacoustic projection imaging system.Journal of biomedical optics · 2024Article
- Application of the Photoacoustic Approach in the Characterization of Nanostructured Materials.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Optical phase contrast imaging for absolute, quantitative measurements of ultrasonic fields with frequencies up to 20 MHz.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- TGV-regularized inversion of the Radon transform for photoacoustic tomography.Biomedical optics express · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound sensor arrays for photoacoustic tomography (PAT) are investigated that create line projections of the pressure generated in an object by pulsed light illumination. Projections over a range of viewing angles enable the reconstruction of a three-dimensional image. Two line-integrating arrays are compared in this study for the in vivo imaging of vasculature, a piezoelectric array, and a camera-based setup that captures snapshots of the acoustic field emanating from the sample. An array consisting of 64 line-shaped sensors made of piezoelectric polymer film, which was arranged on a half-cylindrical area, was used to acquire spatiotemporal data from a human finger. The optical setup used phase contrast to visualize the acoustic field generated in the leg of a mouse after a selected delay time. Time-domain back projection and frequency-domain back propagation were used for image reconstruction from the piezoelectric and optical data, respectively. The comparison yielded an about threefold higher resolution for the optical setup and an about 13-fold higher sensitivity of the piezoelectric array. Due to the high density of data in the camera images, the optical technique gave images without streak artifacts, which were visible in the piezo array images due to the discrete detector positions. Overall, both detection concepts are suited for almost real-time projection imaging and three-dimensional imaging with a data acquisition time of less than a minute without averaging, which was limited by the repetition rate of the laser.
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.