ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2025
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: Tumor tissues exhibit contrast with healthy tissue in circular degree of polarization (DOP) images via higher magnitude circular DOP values and increased helicity-flipping. This phenomenon may enable polarimetric tumor detection and surgical/procedural guidance applications. Aim: Depolarization metrics have been shown to exhibit differential responses to healthy and cancer tissue, whereby tumor tissues tend to induce less depolarization; however, the understanding of this depolarization-based contrast remains limited. Therefore, we investigate depolarization signals from tumor tissue and non-tumor tissue. Approach: Mice ( Results: Linear DOP is greater in magnitude than circular DOP across both tissue types; however, circular DOP yields greater contrast between tumor and non-tumor tissues. Circular DOP values are higher in magnitude and more negative (i.e., more helicity-flipping) in tumors, whereas linear DOP values exhibit similar behavior; however, they are only slightly higher in magnitude and slightly more negative (i.e., more co-linearity) in tumors. Conclusions: Circular DOP images yield useful contrast between human PDAC xenografts and surrounding healthy skin in live mice. Each tumor region exhibited higher magnitude circular DOP (and total DOP) values, as previously observed. We noted three indications of Rayleigh scattering in the tumor tissue: (1) linear DOP > circular DOP, (2) helicity-flipping > helicity-preservation, and (3) co-linear intensity > cross-linear intensity. Rayleigh scatterers have been found to be highly polarization preserving; thus, we posit that higher DOP in tumor tissues may arise from an increased presence of Rayleigh scatterers. Furthermore, circular DOP may yield greater contrast between tumor and non-tumor via its well-observed sensitivity to scatterer size. Further investigation is warranted to test these hypotheses.
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.