ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Bridging Photoacoustic and Protoacoustic Imaging: Material Heterogeneity Effects on Proton Range Verification Using Time-of-Flight Analysis.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Photoacoustic and protoacoustic imaging share the common principle of acoustic wave generation through different excitation sources: optical absorption vs. proton Bragg-peak. These acoustic signals exhibit heterogeneity within the tissue, which strongly influence wave propagation and detection accuracy. In this study, we investigate how material variation affects time-of-flight (TOF)-based acoustic signal analysis in the context of protoacoustic proton range verification, providing insights relevant to broader photoacoustic imaging methodologies. A ±15 °C temperature difference in water caused only a 0.04 μs delay and thus had a minimal effect. In heterogeneous phantoms, lung-containing cases produced range errors up to 3.72 mm. In clinical scenarios, detectors aligned with air or low-density tissues showed large overestimations, up to 192.4 mm. Only 2 of 25 detector positions met the <2 mm error criterion. These results highlight that tissue composition and acoustic heterogeneity significantly influence protoacoustic wave propagation and range accuracy. Accurate range verification using protoacoustics must account for material variations along the wave path, particularly in lung regions, to ensure clinical applicability.
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.