ArticleBiomedical engineering letters2022
Performance comparison of high-speed photoacoustic microscopy: opto-ultrasound combiner versus ring-shaped ultrasound transducer.
Article in Biomedical engineering letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fully integrated photoacoustic microscopy for multi-scale and longitudinal imaging in translational biomedical applications.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Photoacoustic Microscopy for Multiscale Biological System Visualization and Clinical Translation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Ring-segment piezopolymer sensor optimized for cylindrical-wave detection in optical-resolution optoacoustic angiography with extended imaging depth.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review of high-performance photoacoustic microscopy systems.Photoacoustics · 2025Review
- Broadband transparent ultrasound transducer with polymethyl methacrylate as matching layer forPhotoacoustics · 2023Article
- Article
- Enhancing optoacoustic mesoscopy through calibration-based iterative reconstruction.Photoacoustics · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Photoacoustic microscopy (PAM) embedded with a 532 nm pulse laser is widely used to visualize the microvascular structures in both small animals and humans in vivo. An opto-ultrasound combiner (OUC) is often utilized in high-speed PAM to confocally align the optical and acoustic beams to improve the system's sensitivity. However, acoustic impedance mismatch in the OUC results in little improvement in the sensitivity. Alternatively, a ring-shaped ultrasound transducer (RUT) can also accomplish the confocal configuration. Here, we compare the performance of OUC and RUT modules through ultrasound pulse-echo tests and PA imaging experiments. The signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the RUT-based system were 15 dB, 12 dB, and 7 dB higher when compared to the OUC-based system for ultrasound pulse-echo test, PA phantom imaging test, and PA in-vivo imaging test, respectively. In addition, the RUT-based system could image the microvascular structures of small parts of a mouse body in a few seconds with minimal loss in SNR. Thus, with increased sensitivity, improved image details, and fast image acquisition, we believe the RUT-based systems could play a significant role in the design of future fast-PAM systems.
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.