ArticlePhotoacoustics2024
Quality control in clinical raster-scan optoacoustic mesoscopy.
Article in Photoacoustics, 2024. 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.
- Real-time quality control in optoacoustic mesoscopy for enhancing data quality and standardization in clinical studies.Photoacoustics · 2026Article
- Single-capillary endothelial dysfunction resolved by optoacoustic mesoscopy.Light, science & applications · 2026Article
- High spectral energy density all-fiber nanosecond pulsed 1.7 μm light source for photoacoustic microscopy.Photoacoustics · 2025Article
- A clinical feasibility study of a photoacoustic finder for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients: A prospective cross-sectional study.Photoacoustics · 2025Article
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
Optoacoustic (photoacoustic) mesoscopy bridges the gap between optoacoustic microscopy and macroscopy and enables high-resolution visualization deeper than optical microscopy. Nevertheless, as images may be affected by motion and noise, it is critical to develop methodologies that offer standardization and quality control to ensure that high-quality datasets are reproducibly obtained from patient scans. Such development is particularly important for ensuring reliability in applying machine learning methods or for reliably measuring disease biomarkers. We propose herein a quality control scheme to assess the quality of data collected. A reference scan of a suture phantom is performed to characterize the system noise level before each raster-scan optoacoustic mesoscopy (RSOM) measurement. Using the recorded RSOM data, we develop a method that estimates the amount of motion in the raw data. These motion metrics are employed to classify the quality of raw data collected and derive a quality assessment index (
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.