ArticleOptica2024
Stimulated emission does not radiate in a pure dipole pattern.
Article in Optica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stimulated emission (StE) remains relatively unused as an image-forming signal despite having potential advantages over fluorescence in speed, coherence, and ultimately resolution. Several ideas for the radiation pattern and directionality of StE remain prevalent, namely, whether a single molecule would radiate StE itself in a pure dipole pattern, or whether its emission direction depends on the driving field. Previous StE imaging has been carried out in transmission, which would collect signal either way. Here, we introduce the StE driving field (the
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.