ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2022
Photoacoustic signal-to-noise ratio comparison for pulse and continuous waveforms of very low optical fluence.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: A majority in the photoacoustic (PA) community unconditionally accepts that pulse PA signals show much higher signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) than continuously excited PA signals. However, we indicate this existing notion would not be valid for very low optical-fluence light-emiting diodes (LEDs)/laser diodes (LDs)-based PA systems. Aim: We demonstrate in theory and simulation that when the optical fluence of PA-excitation waveforms is much lower than the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) maximum permission exposure (MPE), matched filtered PA signals from chirp waveforms show higher SNRs than those of pulse train waveforms. Approach: We theoretically derive the PA SNR expression considering the pulse fluence reduction factor based on the ANSI MPE. We investigate and analyze SNR ratios of the pulse train and chirp-waveform matched filtered PA signals with conceptual understanding. We also perform brute-force simulations to extract PA SNRs for the verification of the result. Results: The brute-force simulations show that the matched filtering with chirp waveforms could achieve better SNRs than pulse train waveforms for very low-fluence PA systems. As the fluence is smaller, the SNR of the matched filtered PA signals is more dominant than that of pulse trains in a wider PA data acquisition time range. In addition, estimated SNR ratios adopting actual parameters of LED/LD-based pulse train PA systems in previous literature support the finding of this paper. Conclusions: The result can extend the possibility of applying various continuous waveform techniques already studied in the conventional radar technology to PA systems of limited optical power, which would diversify and expedite the research and development of LED/LD-based, compact, and cost-effective PA 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.