Investigating ultrasound–light interaction in scattering media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Ultrasound-assisted optical imaging techniques, such as ultrasound-modulated optical tomography, allow for imaging deep inside scattering media. In these modalities, a fraction of the photons passing through the ultrasound beam is modulated. The efficiency by which the photons are converted is typically referred to as the ultrasound modulation's "tagging efficiency." Interestingly, this efficiency has been defined in varied and discrepant fashion throughout the scientific literature. AIM: The aim of this study is the ultrasound tagging efficiency in a manner consistent with its definition and experimentally verify the contributive (or noncontributive) relationship between the mechanisms involved in the ultrasound optical modulation process. APPROACH: We adopt a general description of the tagging efficiency as the fraction of photons traversing an ultrasound beam that is frequency shifted (inclusion of all frequency-shifted components). We then systematically studied the impact of ultrasound pressure and frequency on the tagging efficiency through a balanced detection measurement system that measured the power of each order of the ultrasound tagged light, as well as the power of the unmodulated light component. RESULTS: Through our experiments, we showed that the tagging efficiency can reach 70% in a scattering phantom with a scattering anisotropy of 0.9 and a scattering coefficient of 4 mm - 1 for a 1-MHz ultrasound with a relatively low (and biomedically acceptable) peak pressure of 0.47 MPa. Furthermore, we experimentally confirmed that the two ultrasound-induced light modulation mechanisms, particle displacement and refractive index change, act in opposition to each other. CONCLUSION: Tagging efficiency was quantified via simulation and experiments. These findings reveal avenues of investigation that may help improve ultrasound-assisted optical imaging techniques.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".