4.6 Article

Comparative study of the imaging contrasts of Mueller matrix derived parameters between transmission and backscattering polarimetry

期刊

BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 4413-4428

出版社

Optica Publishing Group
DOI: 10.1364/BOE.9.004413

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFF0103000, 2016YFC0208600]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Shenzhen [JCYJ20170412170814624]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61405102, 61527826, 41475125]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mueller matrix polarimetry is a potentially powerful tool for biomedical diagnosis. Recently, the transmission Mueller matrix microscope and backscattering Mueller matrix endoscope were developed and applied to various pathological samples. However, a comparative study of imaging contrasts of Mueller matrix derived parameters between transmission and backscattering measurements is still needed to help decide which information obtained from transmission Mueller matrix microscope can be directly applied to in vivo Mueller matrix imaging. Here, to compare the imaging contrasts of Mueller matrix derived parameters between transmission and backscattering polarimetry, we measure porcine liver tissue samples and human breast carcinoma tissue specimens. The experiments and corresponding Monte Carlo stimulation results demonstrate that the backscattering and transmission retardance-related Mueller matrix parameters have very similar contrasts to characterize the anisotropic and isotropic structures of pathological tissues, meaning that the conclusions made from Mueller matrix microscopic imaging based on retardance can also be helpful to guide the in situ backscattering Mueller matrix polarimetric diagnosis. However, the values and contrasts of depolarization-related Mueller matrix parameters have some differences between transmission and backscattering polarimetry. (C) 2018 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据