ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative simulation analysis of photonic ultrasound sensors based on silicon waveguides.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pressure sensors based on photonic integrated circuits (PIC) offer the prospect of outstanding sensitivities, extreme miniaturization and have the potential for highly scalable production using CMOS compatible processing. PIC-based pressure sensors detect the change in optical properties, i.e. the intensity or phase of the optical carrier wave inside miniaturized waveguide structures. The detection of ultrasound is achieved by engineering the waveguide architecture such that a pressure causes a high change in the effective refractive index of the waveguide. A range of PIC-based pressure sensors have been reported, but a comparison of the sensitivity of the different approaches is not straightforward, since different pressure sensitive waveguide architectures as well as photonic layouts and measurement setups impact the performance. Additionally, the used sensitivity unit is not uniform throughout the different studies, further complicating a comparison. In this work, a detailed simulation study is carried out by finite element modeling of different pressure sensitive waveguide architectures for a consistent comparison. We analyze three different sensor architectures: (A) a free standing membrane located within a tiny air gap above the waveguide, (B) a waveguide located on top of a deflectable membrane as well as (C) a waveguide embedded inside a pressure-sensitive polymer cladding. The mechanical response of the structures and the resulting changes in mode propagation, i.e. the change of the effective refractive index, are analyzed. The waveguide sensitivities in RIU/MPa for different waveguide types (strip, slot) and polarization states (TE, TM) are compared. The results reveal inherent limitations of the different waveguide designs and create a basis for the selection of suitable designs for further ultrasound sensor development. Possibilities for enhancing waveguide sensitivity are identified and discussed. Additionally, we have shown that the studied approaches are extensible to SiN waveguides.
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.