ReviewJournal of biomedical optics2021
Review of consensus test methods in medical imaging and current practices in photoacoustic image quality assessment.
Review in Journal of biomedical optics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Image Quality Improvement Techniques and Assessment Adequacy in Clinical Optoacoustic Imaging: A Systematic Review.Biosensors · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing image quality in photoacoustic imaging: A metric-based and deep learning-based evaluation.Photoacoustics · 2026Article
- Optical phantoms for the characterization and validation of imaging and spectroscopy: a review.Biophotonics discovery · 2026Review
- Blood-mimicking dye phantoms for evaluating photoacoustic oximetry accuracy.Photoacoustics · 2026Article
- Clinical translation of photoacoustic imaging using exogenous molecular contrast agents [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2025Review
- Impact of signal-to-noise ratio and contrast definition on the sensitivity assessment and benchmarking of fluorescence molecular imaging systems.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
- Tutorial on phantoms for photoacoustic imaging applications.Journal of biomedical optics · 2024Review
- Phantoms for evaluating the impact of skin pigmentation on photoacoustic imaging and oximetry performance.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Combined ultrasound and photoacoustic C-mode imaging system for skin lesion assessment.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Design and characterization of color printed polyurethane films as biomedical phantom layers.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Nanomedicines for high‑intensity focused ultrasound cancer treatment and theranostics (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Review
- Acoustic Attenuation and Dispersion in Fatty Tissues and Tissue Phantoms Influencing Ultrasound Biomedical Imaging.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Biomimetic tissue phantoms for neurosurgical near-infrared fluorescence imaging.Neurophotonics · 2023Article
- Photoacoustic imaging phantoms for assessment of object detectability and boundary buildup artifacts.Photoacoustics · 2022Article
- Special Section Guest Editorial: Tissue Phantoms to Advance Biomedical Optical Systems.Journal of biomedical optics · 2022Article
- Tissue-mimicking phantoms for performance evaluation of photoacoustic microscopy systems.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Standardization and implementation of fluorescence molecular endoscopy in the clinic.Journal of biomedical optics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of standardized performance test methods for biomedical Raman spectroscopy.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
significancePhotoacoustic imaging (PAI) is a powerful emerging technology with broad clinical applications, but consensus test methods are needed to standardize performance evaluation and accelerate translation.
aimTo review consensus image quality test methods for mature imaging modalities [ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), x-ray CT, and x-ray mammography], identify best practices in phantom design and testing procedures, and compare against current practices in PAI phantom testing. APPROACH: We reviewed scientific papers, international standards, clinical accreditation guidelines, and professional society recommendations describing medical image quality test methods. Observations are organized by image quality characteristics (IQCs), including spatial resolution, geometric accuracy, imaging depth, uniformity, sensitivity, low-contrast detectability, and artifacts.
resultsConsensus documents typically prescribed phantom geometry and material property requirements, as well as specific data acquisition and analysis protocols to optimize test consistency and reproducibility. While these documents considered a wide array of IQCs, reported PAI phantom testing focused heavily on in-plane resolution, depth of visualization, and sensitivity. Understudied IQCs that merit further consideration include out-of-plane resolution, geometric accuracy, uniformity, low-contrast detectability, and co-registration accuracy.
conclusionsAvailable medical image quality standards provide a blueprint for establishing consensus best practices for photoacoustic image quality assessment and thus hastening PAI technology advancement, translation, and clinical adoption.
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.