Photoacoustic and high-frequency power Doppler ultrasound biomicroscopy: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both photoacoustic imaging and power Doppler ultrasound are capable of producing images of the vasculature of living subjects, however, the contrast mechanisms of the two modalities are very different. We present a quantitative and objective comparison of the two methods using phantom data, highlighting relative merits and shortcomings. An imaging system for combined photoacoustic and high-frequency power Doppler ultrasound microscopy is presented. This system uses a swept-scan 25-MHz ultrasound transducer with confocal dark-field laser illumination optics. A pulse-sequencer enables ultrasonic and laser pulses to be interlaced so that photoacoustic and power Doppler ultrasound images can be coregistered. Experiments are performed on flow phantoms with various combinations of vessel size, flow velocity, and optical wavelength. For the task of blood volume detection, power Doppler is seen to be advantageous for large vessels and high flow speeds. For small vessels with low flow speeds, photoacoustic imaging is seen to be more effective than power Doppler at the detection of blood as quantified by receiver operating characteristic analysis. A combination of the two modes could provide improved estimates of fractional blood volume in comparison with either mode used alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".