ReviewJournal of biomedical optics2024
Tutorial on phantoms for photoacoustic imaging applications.
Review in Journal of biomedical optics, 2024. 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.
- In-silico investigation into optimal photoacoustic probe design using a digital thyroid phantom.Journal of biomedical optics · 2027Article
- Real-time quality control in optoacoustic mesoscopy for enhancing data quality and standardization in clinical studies.Photoacoustics · 2026Article
- OpenQPAIData: Measurements of test objects with reference labels for quantitative photoacoustic imaging research.Scientific data · 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
- A Deep Transfer Learning Framework for Speed-of-Sound Aberration Correction in Full-Ring Photoacoustic Tomography.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advanced optical phantom mimicking microvascular and directed blood flow in mouse brain.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: Photoacoustic imaging (PAI) is an emerging technology that holds high promise in a wide range of clinical applications, but standardized methods for system testing are lacking, impeding objective device performance evaluation, calibration, and inter-device comparisons. To address this shortfall, this tutorial offers readers structured guidance in developing tissue-mimicking phantoms for photoacoustic applications with potential extensions to certain acoustic and optical imaging applications. Aim: The tutorial review aims to summarize recommendations on phantom development for PAI applications to harmonize efforts in standardization and system calibration in the field. Approach: The International Photoacoustic Standardization Consortium has conducted a consensus exercise to define recommendations for the development of tissue-mimicking phantoms in PAI. Results: Recommendations on phantom development are summarized in seven defined steps, expanding from (1) general understanding of the imaging modality, definition of (2) relevant terminology and parameters and (3) phantom purposes, recommendation of (4) basic material properties, (5) material characterization methods, and (6) phantom design to (7) reproducibility efforts. Conclusions: The tutorial offers a comprehensive framework for the development of tissue-mimicking phantoms in PAI to streamline efforts in system testing and push forward the advancement and translation of the technology.
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.