ArticleScientific reports2026
Motion score for spectral quality control of optoacoustic-ultrasound data.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motion can markedly affect the image quality acquired by handheld multispectral optoacoustic-ultrasound (MS-OPUS) hybrid systems. Since images at different wavelengths are acquired sequentially, tissue and operator movement can affect the spectra assigned to each volume element (voxels) in the images. To improve the accuracy of MS-OPUS spectral measurements, we sought to develop a method that could quantify and mitigate motion effects. We introduce Motion score, a post-processing algorithm for motion quantification and automated frame selection in MS-OPUS. Our method estimates motion in frames by tracking the similarity of co-registered ultrasound images and automatically selects low-motion frames. Algorithmic performance was validated on a dataset of ten scans, i.e., eight tissue-mimicking agar phantoms and two in vivo scans of arteries featuring different motion patterns. We show that Motion score had exceptionally high agreement with human annotators in selecting low-motion MS-OPUS frames, the gold standard process, while speeding up the process notably. Moreover, Motion score outperformed other methods such as optical flow or cross-correlation by a large margin. Furthermore, we show that frames with low Motion score were free of motion-related artefacts and have the optimal spectral quality. Finally, we provide an open-source implementation of Motion score as an off-the-shelf tool that can bring an immediate benefit to any clinical or preclinical MS-OPUS analysis pipeline.
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.