Advanced Biomedical and Clinical Diagnostic Systems VIII 2010
DOI: 10.1117/12.842328
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fast coregistered breast imaging in vivo using a hand-held optical imager

Abstract: A hand-held optical imaging device has been developed in our laboratory towards fast 2D imaging and 3D tomography for breast cancer diagnosis. The device has the unique abilities: (1) to contour to different tissue curvatures using a flexible probe face; (2) perform fast 2D imaging by employing simultaneous over sequential source illumination; and (3) self coregistration towards (future) 3D tomography. The objective of the current work is to demonstrate fast coregistered 2D imaging on breast tissue of healthy … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The probe was steadier at location 1 than location 3 because it was supported by the chest wall. The average total distance off between the true and tracked location is ∼1 cm, which is much higher than that previously determined from a cubical phantom (∼0.19 cm) (Erickson et al 2010b). This can be attributed to: (i) instability in the tracker leading to fluctuations in the tracked position of the probe (Regalado et al 2010, Martinez et al 2010; and (ii) human error such as hand movement of the operator across the 10 measurement repetitions and manual measurement of the reference points on the tissue.…”
Section: Accuracy Of 3d Positional Trackingmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…The probe was steadier at location 1 than location 3 because it was supported by the chest wall. The average total distance off between the true and tracked location is ∼1 cm, which is much higher than that previously determined from a cubical phantom (∼0.19 cm) (Erickson et al 2010b). This can be attributed to: (i) instability in the tracker leading to fluctuations in the tracked position of the probe (Regalado et al 2010, Martinez et al 2010; and (ii) human error such as hand movement of the operator across the 10 measurement repetitions and manual measurement of the reference points on the tissue.…”
Section: Accuracy Of 3d Positional Trackingmentioning
confidence: 65%