ArticlePhotoacoustics2025
Local laser fluence estimation in optical resolution optoacoustic angiography employing calibrated ultrasound detector.
Article in Photoacoustics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linking Adjuvant Immune Stimulation to Spatiotemporal Dynamics via Cross-Scale Photoacoustic Microscopy.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2026Article
- Geometry-dependent reachability, homogenization, and redundancy in multi-view photoacoustic illumination.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Ring-segment piezopolymer sensor optimized for cylindrical-wave detection in optical-resolution optoacoustic angiography with extended imaging depth.Biomedical optics express · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical-resolution optoacoustic (photoacoustic) microscopy is a hybrid imaging modality combining focused optical excitation with ultrasound detection, thus achieving micrometer-scale spatial resolution and high-contrast angiographic imaging. Despite these important advantages, maintaining safe laser fluence levels is essential to prevent tissue damage while ensuring sufficient detection sensitivity. Here, we introduce a model that directly relates the detector's noise-equivalent pressure (NEP) to the local laser fluence at the imaged blood vessel. The model incorporates acoustic propagation effects from an optoacoustic source to a spherically focused detector with limited aperture and bandwidth, offering a more comprehensive understanding of how fluence and ultrasonic sensitivity are interconnected. The effects of ultrasound generation propagation and detection were accounted for using analytical estimations and numerical simulations, while detector's NEP was experimentally measured with a calibrated hydrophone. The proposed model for evaluating of local laser fluence with a calibrated ultrasound detector was validated through in vitro experiments with superficially located blood layer and numerical Monte Carlo/k-Wave simulations featuring deeper vessels. In vivo experiments employing 532 nm laser excitation and wideband 1-30 MHz ultrasonic detection further demonstrated the model's capacity for real-time adjustments of laser parameters to ensure tissue safety.
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.