ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2025
A Comparison of Image Reconstruction Methods for Ring-Array Photoacoustic Computed Tomography.
Article in IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2025. 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.
- A Deep Learning-Based Correction for Scanning Radius Errors in Circular-Scan Photoacoustic Tomography.Journal of imaging · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work compares the effectiveness of four image reconstruction techniques for a ring-array photoacoustic computed tomography (PACT) system: the delay-and-sum (DAS), the interpolated model matrix inversion (IMMI), the frequency-domain model-based (FDMB), and the time-reversal (TR) methods. Image quality, computational efficiency, and robustness to noise and spatial/electrical impulse response (EIR) are evaluated to assess the four methods for 2-D imaging. Although it is thought to have limitations in producing high-resolution and artifact-free images, the DAS method is commonly employed in clinical applications because of its simplicity and real-time imaging capability. On the other hand, model-based (MB) methods, such as the IMMI, the FDMB, and the TR methods, use comprehensive physics for a more accurate description of wave propagation through tissue and thus have the potential to provide higher image quality and quantitative information. These approaches, however, require substantially more processing power, which can make them less suitable for real-time applications. Our results show that the DAS method achieves real-time performance while delivering better image quality for an ex vivo elongated target, whereas both the IMMI and the FDMB methods provide enhanced detail and resolution for thin-slice targets, at the cost of considerably slower reconstruction times. The TR method achieves reasonable resolution and detail for all cases but shows the slowest image reconstruction time. This work highlights the strengths and limitations of each method, offering valuable insights into selecting the most appropriate reconstruction technique for ring-array PACT systems.
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.