ArticleJournal of physics D: Applied physics2020
Optimizing the performance of multiline-scanning confocal microscopy.
Article in Journal of physics D: Applied physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reduced Cell-ECM Interactions in the EpiSC Colony Center Cause Heterogeneous Differentiation.Cells · 2023Article
- SOLEIL: single-objective lens inclined light sheet localization microscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
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
Line-scanning confocal microscopy provides high imaging speed and moderate optical sectioning strength, which makes it a useful tool for imaging various biospecimens ranging from living cells to fixed tissues. Conventional line-scanning systems have only used a single excitation line and slit, and thus have not fully exploited benefits of parallelization. Here we investigate the optical performance of multi-line scanning confocal microscopy (mLS) by employing a digital micro-mirror that provides programmable patterns of the illumination beam and the detection slit. Through experimental results and optical simulations, we assess the depth discrimination of mLS under different optical parameters and compare it with multi-point systems such as scanning disk confocal microscopy (SDCM). Under the same illumination duty cycle, we find that mLS has better optical sectioning than SDCM at a high degree of parallelization. The optimized mLS provides a low photobleaching rate and video-rate imaging while its optical sectioning is similar to single line-scanning confocal microscopy.
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.