ArticleBiomedical optics express2026
Quantifying optical sectioning in reflection microscopy with patterned illumination.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sectioning techniques based on patterned illumination have been widely used to obtain well-contrasted images of thick samples using widefield imaging setups. While their application to fluorescence microscopy has been extensively demonstrated and studied, their application to reflection imaging is scarce, and their performance has only been partly characterized. In this paper, we study numerically and analytically two such sectioning techniques, line confocal (LC) and structured illumination microscopy (SIM), in the context of their application to coherent reflection imaging. We derive approximate analytical equations to relate the performance of sectioning to the optical setup parameters, allowing a straightforward understanding of their influence on the image intensity and depth of focus, and we systematically compare our predictions with experimental data. Finally, we quantify the precision and accuracy of each method in typical practical cases, providing guidelines to choose the most appropriate (LC, SIM, or a simple background subtraction on a widefield image) for the sample under study. We illustrate optical sectioning in the particular case of reflection interference contrast (RIC) microscopy, an imaging technique widely used in soft matter and biophysics studies to monitor object-surface interactions or quantify surface functionalization. Our derivation, however, should also prove useful for other reflection methods such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) or flood illumination ophthalmoscopy.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.