ArticleJournal of biophotonics2026
A Comparative Study on Signal Decomposition Techniques for Stimulated Raman Photoacoustic Microscopy.
Article in Journal of biophotonics, 2026. 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 Comparative Study on Signal Decomposition Techniques for Stimulated Raman Photoacoustic Microscopy.Journal of biophotonics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, we present a comparative study of signal decomposition techniques in multispectral photoacoustic microscopy (MS-PAM) systems that are based on the use of stimulated Raman spectroscopy (SRS). The signal decomposition algorithms leverage the inherent delay between the arrival of two photoacoustic (PA) signals, one from 532 nm and the other from 558 nm. We evaluate four signal decomposition methods: fast Fourier transform (FFT), least squares (LSQ), cross-correlation (XCorr), and a deep learning (DL) approach based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) coupled with an autoencoder architecture. These methods are tested against ground truth PA signals generated separately at 532 and 558 nm wavelengths from the mouse brain. Results show that the FFT method consistently outperforms the others in terms of accuracy, while LSQ, XCorr, and DL's performance exhibits greater variability, especially at longer time delays. Finally, the performance of oxygen saturation estimation is evaluated using the best method (FFT).
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.