Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Revealing hidden bioimaging information by isotropic depolarization filtering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a parameter-free isotropic depolarization filter removes isotropic depolarization from measured Mueller matrices and amplifies the anisotropic component by 1/P3, revealing heart and brain structures that are…

desk verdict A transparent, parameter-free rescaling of polarimetric observables by 1/P3; mathematically correct, but the tissue-demonstration claims need noise analysis and independent validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08358 v1 pith:MXRLYEFD submitted 2024-12-11 physics.optics

Mónica Canabal-Carbia , Irene Estévez , Emilio González-Arnay , Ivan Montes-Gonzalez , Jose J. Gil , Anrau Barrera , Enrique García-Caurel , Razvigor Ossikovski
show 3 more authors
Ignacio Moreno Juan Campos Angel Lizana
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords isotropicdepolarizationanisotropicMuellermatrixpolarimetrycharacteristicdecompositionindicesofpolarimetricpurityfilteringbiomedicalimagingwhitemattertract
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Biological tissues often depolarize light so strongly that the anisotropic part of the depolarization - the part that carries information about fiber orientation and tissue structure - is masked by an isotropic background. The paper's central claim is that this mask can be removed with a simple, parameter-free filter: subtract the perfect-depolarizer term from the measured Mueller matrix and renormalize. After the filter, every standard polarimetric observable (diattenuation, polarizance, indices of polarimetric purity, depolarization index) is rescaled by the factor $1/P_3(x,y)$, where $P_3$ is the index of polarimetric purity tied to isotropic depolarization. In ex-vivo lamb heart sections the filter reveals myocardial and subendocardial boundaries and epicardial edges; in cattle brain sections it identifies individual white-matter fiber tracts that are invisible in both intensity images and unfiltered polarimetric images. If the claim holds, this is a zero-parameter post-processing step that can be added to any Mueller-matrix imaging workflow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the isotropic depolarization filter (IDF), defined as $M_a = M - (1-P_3)(m_{00}\hat{M}_3)$, where $\hat{M}_3 = \mathrm{diag}(1,0,0,0)$ is the perfect depolarizer and $1-P_3$ is its weight in the characteristic decomposition. The filter's action is to remove the perfect-depolarizer term and renormalize; the resulting normalized elements are the original ones divided by $P_3(x,y)$, so every non-intensity observable scales by $1/P_3$. It works because $P_3$ measures the anisotropic fraction of depolarization, and the inequality $P_1\le P_2\le P_3$ means a low $P_3$ compresses the dynamic range of $P_1$ and $P_2$; setting $P_3$ to 1 projects the data onto the top surface of the Purity Space where tissue classes separate.

What would settle it

Take a structurally uniform depolarizing phantom (for example, a slab of scattering material with no internal organization), measure its Mueller matrix image with the same polarimeter, and apply the IDF; if the filtered image displays contrast comparable to the heart or brain results, then division by $P_3$ is amplifying measurement noise rather than tissue structure. A quantitative version: for each pixel compute the unfiltered observable's per-pixel uncertainty $\sigma_Q$ from repeated frames; wherever $P_3(x,y)$ drops below about $3\sigma_Q / Q(x,y)$, the filtered observable $Q/P_3$ is noise-dominated and should not be interpreted as structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is the isotropic depolarization filter (IDF). Writing any Mueller matrix through its characteristic decomposition as $$M = P_1(m_{00}\hat{M}_{J0}) + (P_2-P_1)(m_{00}\hat{M}_1) + (P_3-P_2)(m_{00}\hat{M}_2) + (1-P_3)(m_{00}\hat{M}_3),$$ the last term is the isotropic, perfect-depolarizer contribution. Setting $M_a = M - (1-P_3)(m_{00}\hat{M}_3)$ and renormalizing gives $m'_{00}=P_3 m_{00}$ while all other elements are unchanged before normalization; consequently every non-intensity observable satisfies $Q'(x,y)=Q(x,y)/P_3(x,y)$. Because $P_3$ is the proportion of anisotropic depolarization, dividing by it magnifies the anisotropic channel. In the heart sample the filtered $P_1$ channel separates myocardium from subendocardium and shows epicardial boundaries; in the brain sample filtered diattenuation $D'$ resolves white-matter tracts by their orientation, with data-cloud dispersion in the Purity and CP spaces increasing by factors 3.92 and 7.57.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured Mueller matrices are accurate enough that pixel-level values of $P_3$ - often below 0.15 and as low as about 0.03 in the supplementary data - reflect genuine anisotropic tissue structure rather than detector noise, calibration error, or depolarization-estimation error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any Mueller-matrix imaging pipeline can apply the IDF as a post-processing step with no extra measurements and no free parameters; the filtered observable is just the original divided by the per-pixel $P_3$.
  • In soft tissues where $P_3$ is small, the contrast gain is large: the heart sample shows myocardial and subendocardial borders and epicardial edges that are absent from the unfiltered $P_1$ image.
  • In brain tissue, filtered diattenuation $D'$ resolves individual white-matter tracts (superior longitudinal fasciculus, cingulum, callosal U-fibers, internal-capsule coalescence) that unfiltered $D$ cannot separate.
  • The filter increases inter-class dispersion in Purity and CP spaces by a factor near $1/P_3$ (3.92 for the heart regions, 7.57 for the brain regions), so it should improve tissue classification as well as visualization.
  • Because the filter is general, any sample with significant isotropic depolarization, not only biomedical tissues, can be treated the same way.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A corollary the paper leaves implicit is a noise floor: since the filter divides every observable by $P_3(x,y)$, its useful dynamic range is bounded by the accuracy of the measured Mueller matrix; users should mask or smooth pixels where $P_3$ is comparable to the per-pixel uncertainty of the unfiltered observable.
  • The same $1/P_3$ scaling suggests the IDF could be composed with other Mueller decompositions (Lu-Chipman, Arrow, symmetric); the paper only hypothesizes that retardance-based contrast gains are negligible, so a derivation or numerical test would settle that claim.
  • Because the filter is parameter-free and increases inter-class separation by a factor near $1/P_3$, it should transfer directly to automatic tissue classification pipelines as a preprocessing step, though the paper does not report classification experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a post-processing "isotropic depolarization filter" (IDF) that subtracts the perfect-depolarizer term (1-P3)m00 M3 from each measured Mueller matrix image M, yielding a filtered matrix Ma. The authors derive that, after renormalization, all non-intensity polarimetric observables (diattenuation, polarizance, indices of polarimetric purity, depolarization index, spherical purity) are rescaled by the factor 1/P3(x,y). They apply the filter to ex-vivo lamb heart and cattle brain sections and report that structures such as myocardial/subendocardial boundaries and white-matter fiber tracts become visible in the filtered images where they were invisible or unclear in the unfiltered images and in intensity images.

Significance. The filter is simple, parameter-free, and readily implementable, and the algebraic derivation from the characteristic decomposition is clear. The premise that isotropic depolarization can mask anisotropic depolarization-related contrast is physically plausible and consistent with the authors' earlier work on the IPP framework. However, the empirical demonstration is not yet convincing: the reported contrast and dispersion increases are exactly the deterministic 1/P3 rescaling derived in Eqs. (8) and (13), not independent evidence of performance; the filtered matrix Ma is not shown to be physically realizable; and there is no noise analysis, no independent ground truth (e.g., histology), and no public data. The method may be a useful visualization tool, but the central claim that it "reveals hidden bioimaging information" requires substantially stronger validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 3.2 and 3.3, with Eqs. (8) and (13)] The reported increases in dispersion by factors of 3.92 (heart, Sec. 3.2) and 7.57 (brain, Sec. 3.3) are not empirical evidence of improved performance. These numbers are exactly 1/P3 for the respective samples, as the paper itself notes ("the contrast is enhanced by an amount of 1/P3"), so the enlargement of the point clouds in Figs. 2(d) and 3(d) follows by construction from the definition of the filter. A genuine demonstration of advantage requires metrics that are invariant to this trivial rescaling, such as contrast-to-noise ratio against a measured noise floor, receiver-operating-characteristic analysis for tissue discrimination, or comparison with independent structural data; none is provided.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.2, Eq. (9), and Supplement Eq. (S.2)] The filtered covariance matrix satisfies H(Ma) = H(M) - (1-P3)m00 I. Using the IPP relation (Eq. (12)), one finds that the smallest eigenvalue of H(Ma) is -3λ_min, which is negative for any sample with P3<1. Consequently Ma violates Cloude's criterion and is not a physically realizable Mueller matrix. The manuscript nowhere acknowledges this, instead interpreting P'_n and D' as physical observables of the sample. The authors should explicitly state that the filtered observables are rescaled versions of the original data rather than physical depolarization properties, or modify the filter to ensure physical realizability; otherwise the claim that the filter "removes" isotropic depolarization as a physical operation is not supported.
  3. [Secs. 3.2-3.3 and Table S1] The filter divides every non-intensity observable by P3(x,y), which is estimated from the same noisy Mueller matrix through the eigenvalues of H (Eq. (12)). For the heart sample P3 = 0.032, giving a gain of ~31, and for brain white matter P3 = 0.125, giving a gain of ~8. In low-P3 regions the eigenvalue spectrum of H is nearly degenerate, so relative errors in P3 can be large; the division then amplifies noise multiplicatively. The manuscript provides no repeated-measurement noise characterization, no flat-field control, and no histology or other independent ground truth, and the data are not publicly available. Without such controls, the "revealed" fiber tracts (Fig. 3(b)) and myocardial boundaries (Fig. 2(b)) could be spatial fluctuations of measurement noise rather than genuine anisotropic depolarization structure.
  4. [Secs. 3.2 and 3.3] The choice of observable shown for each sample is made post hoc: P1 is chosen for the heart because it was "the most interesting metric" and D for the brain because it "provided the best results". Since the authors presumably computed many observables (P1, P2, P3, P∆, Ps, D, P), selecting the best-looking one per sample introduces selection bias and inflates the apparent performance. Please present the results for all tested observables for both main samples, or pre-specify the observable selection rule; otherwise the comparison is not a fair test of the filter's general utility.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 3 caption] The text refers to "the intensity image of the brain section in Fig. 3 (a)" and "the application of the filter on D (Fig. 3 (c))", but in the caption (a) is the unfiltered diattenuation D and (c) is the intensity image; the cross-references should be corrected.
  2. [Supplement, Eq. (S.2)] The inequality in Eq. (S.2) is written as "λ4 ≤ λ3 ≤ λ2 ≤ λ1 ≤ 0"; for physical covariance matrices the eigenvalues should be nonnegative, so the final inequality should be "λ4 ≥ 0" (or the ordering should be stated consistently with nonnegative eigenvalues).
  3. [Sec. 2.2.1] The claim that the filter effect on retardance "can be considered negligible" is presented as a hypothesis based on unpublished observations. Please provide supporting data or explicitly label this as an untested assumption.
  4. [Eq. (7)] The notation "D′T P′" for the off-diagonal block of the filtered Mueller matrix is not defined; please define block notation for clarity.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusions] There are minor language issues: "These proves" (Abstract), "hidden" used as a verb in Conclusions ("the isotropic depolarization usually hiddens"), and "ad" in the phrase before "treatment" in Sec. 3.1. These should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The filter's mathematical construction is self-contained, but the paper's quantitative performance evidence—contrast gain, range expansion, and point-cloud dispersion—reduces by construction to its own 1/P3 normalization.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2, Eqs. (6)-(8), (13)-(14)]
    "From Eq. (8) we see that filtering P and D means dividing the original values of these observables by P3. ... P ′ n(x, y) = Pn(x, y)/P3(x, y) , (13) ... P ′ ∆(x, y) = P∆(x, y)/P3(x, y) , P ′ s(x, y) = Ps(x, y)/P3(x, y) . (14)"

    Eq. (6) establishes that the filter only changes m00 to P3m00 while all other elements are unchanged; after normalization by the new m00, any normalized observable built from off-diagonal elements is multiplied by 1/P3. Therefore Eqs. (8), (13), and (14) define the filtered observables as the unfiltered observables rescaled by 1/P3. Presenting this rescaling as an achieved 'contrast enhancement' is a definitional equivalence, not empirical evidence.

  2. self definitional [Sections 3.2 and 3.3]
    "Since the P3 parameter controls the height ... the dispersion increases by a factor 1 /P3 (3.92 times larger for this case). ... when applying the filter, the range variation of the filtered diattenuation D′ is largely increased, taking values almost covering the full range (0-1) ... the variance of the points increases in a factor 7.57."

    The 3.92 and 7.57 factors, the enlarged point-cloud separations, and the 0-1 diattenuation range are numerical consequences of rescaling the unfiltered data with the spatially varying gain 1/P3(x,y), not independent measurements of image quality. No histology, noise characterization, or other ground truth is used to confirm that the revealed structures originate in the sample; the only quantified performance metrics cited in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are the rescaled statistics themselves.

full rationale

The mathematical construction of the filter is self-contained up to the standard characteristic decomposition: Ma is obtained by subtracting the perfect-depolarizer term, and the filtered IPP are derived consistently from H(Ma). The isotropic/anisotropic interpretation of P3 is credited to the authors' own Ref. [35], but that prior work derives the correspondence from explicit depolarizer examples rather than from the present results, so I do not count it as a load-bearing circular step. The core circularity is in the evaluation: the claimed contrast gains (factor 1/P3), the expanded diattenuation range (0-1), and the point-cloud dispersion increases (3.92 and 7.57) are algebraic consequences of dividing every normalized observable by P3(x,y), not independent measurements of image quality. Separately, the paper contains no noise or flat-field analysis, and the Data Statement says data are not publicly available; these are validation and verification limitations that amplify the risk that structures claimed to be 'revealed' are spatially varying noise rescaled by large 1/P3 factors, but data unavailability and noise concerns are correctness risks rather than circularity. Overall partial circularity: score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The filter itself has no fitted numerical constants, but the paper relies on the prior characterization of P3 as isotropic depolarization (Ref. [35]), on the assumption that isotropic depolarization is discardable noise, and on an unverified noise floor for the small P3 values used. The post hoc choice of display channel is the main selection degree of freedom.

free parameters (1)
  • observable channel selection per sample = heart: P1; brain: D
    The paper selects, after inspecting results, the single polarimetric observable that gives the best contrast for each sample; this is a post hoc choice, not a pre-specified metric.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Characteristic decomposition of any physical Mueller matrix into four terms weighted by IPP combinations holds (Eq. 1).
    Background from Refs. [36,37]; used to derive the filter in Sec. 2.2.
  • domain assumption The last term (1-P3)m00 M3 corresponds exactly to isotropic depolarization, and P3 measures the proportion of anisotropic depolarization.
    Established in the authors' prior work Ref. [35], not re-derived; central to the filter's physical interpretation, Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Isotropic depolarization is structureless polarimetric white noise and can be discarded without losing intrinsic sample information.
    Statement in Secs. 2.3 and 4; if false, the filter removes useful signal.
  • domain assumption Measured Mueller matrices are accurate enough that pixel-wise division by P3 (often below 0.15) does not amplify noise into artifacts.
    Assumed implicitly in Secs. 2.2 and 3; no SNR or error analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Retardance-based observables are negligibly affected by the filter.
    Explicitly hypothesized in Sec. 2.2.1 without derivation or quantitative test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing hidden bioimaging information by isotropic depolarization filtering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXRLYEFD

@misc{pith2026241208358,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing hidden bioimaging information by isotropic depolarization filtering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXRLYEFD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08358}
}
read the original abstract

We propose an imaging method to enhance and reveal structures within samples by using a polarization-based filter. This filter removes the isotropic content while amplifying the anisotropic component of depolarization. Whereas isotropic depolarization leads to a complete loss of polarimetric information, the anisotropic one is connected with intrinsic characteristics of samples. The filter has the capability to diminish the isotropic depolarization of samples, revealing their inherent information. As representative cases, we analyze the effect of the filter in heart and brain sections of animal origin. Results highlight the outstanding performance of the filter. In heart, myocardial and subendocardial structures are better visualized, whereas in the brain, fiber tracts are identified. These proves the significance of this filter in the medical field, paving the way to the early detection of pathologies. The methodologies here presented could be applied in a wide range of applications, providing a significant advance in polarization imaging where high isotropic depolarization response is present, this being a common scenario in nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08358 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b), (c) and (d) correspond to the anatomical context for measurements showed respec￾tively in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the polarimetric observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the polarimetric observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Canabal-Carbia, I

    M. Canabal-Carbia, I. Est´ evez, E. Nabadda, E. Garcia-Caurel, J. Gil, R. Ossikovski, A. M´ arquez, I. Moreno, J. Campos, A. Lizana, Connecting the microscopic depolarizing origin of samples with macroscopic measures of the indices of polarimetric purity, Optics and Lasers in Engineering 172 (2024) 107830, (DOI: 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2023.107830)

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    F. Snik, C. U. Keller, Astronomical polarimetry: polarized views of stars and planets, Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 2: Astronomical Techniques, Software and Data (2013) 175(DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5618-2-4)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5618-2-4 2013

  3. [2]

    J. S. Tyo, D. L. Goldstein, D. B. Chenault, J. A. Shaw, Review of passive imaging po- larimetry for remote sensing applications, Applied optics 45 (22) (2006) 5453–5469, (DOI: 10.1364/ao.45.005453)

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.45.005453 2006

  4. [3]

    Z. Kong, T. Ma, Y. Cheng, R. Fei, Z. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Mei, A polarization-sensitive imaging lidar for atmospheric remote sensing, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 271 (2021) 107747, (DOI: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107747). 15

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Est´ evez, F

    I. Est´ evez, F. Oliveira, P. Braga-Fernandes, M. Oliveira, L. Rebouta, M. I. Vasilevskiy, Urban objects classification using mueller matrix polarimetry and machine learning, Optics Express 30 (16) (2022) 28385–28400, (DOI: 10.1364/OE.451907)

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.451907 2022

  6. [5]

    Al Bugami, Y

    B. Al Bugami, Y. Su, C. Rodr ´ ıguez, A. Lizana, J. Campos, M. Durfort, R. Ossikovski, E. Garcia- Caurel, Characterization of vine, vitis vinifera, leaves by mueller polarimetric microscopy, Thin Solid Films 764 (2023) 139594, (DOI: 10.1016/j.tsf.2022.139594)

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Rodr ´ ıguez, E

    C. Rodr ´ ıguez, E. Garcia-Caurel, T. Garnatje, M. Serra i Ribas, J. Luque, J. Campos, A. Lizana, Polarimetric observables for the enhanced visualization of plant diseases, Scientific reports 12 (1) (2022) 14743, (DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19088-6)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-19088-6 2022

  8. [7]

    J. C. Ramella-Roman, I. Saytashev, M. Piccini, A review of polarization-based imaging tech- nologies for clinical and preclinical applications, Journal of Optics 22 (12) (2020) 123001, (DOI: 10.1088/2040-8986/abbf8a)

    work page doi:10.1088/2040-8986/abbf8a 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Ivanov, V

    D. Ivanov, V. Dremin, E. Borisova, A. Bykov, T. Novikova, I. Meglinski, R. Ossikovski, Polar- ization and depolarization metrics as optical markers in support to histopathology of ex vivo colon tissue, Biomedical Optics Express 12 (7) (2021) 4560–4572, (DOI: 10.1364/BOE.426713)

    2021 doi

  2. [9]

    Kupinski, M

    M. Kupinski, M. Boffety, F. Goudail, R. Ossikovski, A. Pierangelo, J. Rehbinder, J. Vizet, T. Novikova, Polarimetric measurement utility for pre-cancer detection from uterine cervix specimens, Biomedical optics express 9 (11) (2018) 5691–5702, (DOI: 10.1364/BOE.9.005691)

    2018 doi

  3. [10]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-N´ u˜ nez, P

    O. Rodr ´ ıguez-N´ u˜ nez, P. Schucht, E. Hewer, T. Novikova, A. Pierangelo, Polarimetric visualiza- tion of healthy brain fiber tracts under adverse conditions: ex vivo studies, Biomedical optics express 12 (10) (2021) 6674–6685, (DOI: 10.1364/BOE.439754)

    2021 doi

  4. [11]

    Canabal-Carbia, A

    M. Canabal-Carbia, A. Van Eeckhout, C. Rodr ´ ıguez, E. Gonz´ alez-Arnay, I. Est´ evez, J. J. Gil, E. Garc ´ ıa-Caurel, R. Ossikovski, J. Campos, A. Lizana, Depolarizing metrics in the biomedical field: Vision enhancement and classification of biological tissues, Journal of In...

    2023 doi

  5. [12]

    Rodr ´ ıguez, A

    C. Rodr ´ ıguez, A. Van Eeckhout, E. Garcia-Caurel, A. Lizana, J. Campos, Automatic pseudo- coloring approaches to improve visual perception and contrast in polarimetric images of biolog- ical tissues, Scientific Reports 12 (1) (2022) 18479, (DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23330-6)

    2022 doi

  6. [13]

    J. J. Gil, I. San Jos´ e, M. Canabal-Carbia, I. Est´ evez, E. Gonz´ alez-Arnay, J. Luque, T. Garnatje, J. Campos, A. Lizana, Polarimetric images of biological tissues based on the arrow decomposi- tion of mueller matrices, Photonics 10 (6) (2023) 669, (DOI: 10.3390/photonics10060669)

    2023 doi

  7. [14]

    Van Eeckhout, A

    A. Van Eeckhout, A. Lizana, E. Garcia-Caurel, J. J. Gil, A. Sansa, C. Rodr ´ ıguez, I. Est´ evez, E. Gonz´ alez, J. C. Escalera, I. Moreno, et al., Polarimetric imaging of biological tissues based on the indices of polarimetric purity, Journal of biophotonics 11 (4) (2018) e20...

    2018 doi

  8. [15]

    Van Eeckhout, E

    A. Van Eeckhout, E. Garcia-Caurel, R. Ossikovski, A. Lizana, C. Rodr ´ ıguez, E. Gonz´ alez- Arnay, J. Campos, Depolarization metric spaces for biological tissues classification, Journal of Biophotonics 13 (8) (2020) e202000083, (DOI: 10.1002/jbio.202000083)

    2020 doi

  9. [16]

    Ivanov, V

    D. Ivanov, V. Dremin, T. Genova, A. Bykov, T. Novikova, R. Ossikovski, I. Meglinski, Polarization-based histopathology classification of ex vivo colon samples supported by machine learning, Frontiers in Physics 9 (2022) 800, (DOI: 10.3389/fphy.2021.814787). 16

    2022

  10. [17]

    Majumdar, J

    A. Majumdar, J. Lad, K. Tumanova, S. Serra, F. Quereshy, M. Khorasani, A. Vitkin, Machine learning based local recurrence prediction in colorectal cancer using polarized light imaging, Journal of Biomedical Optics 29 (5) (2024) 052915–052915, (DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.29.5.052915)

    2024 doi

  11. [18]

    M. Sun, H. He, N. Zeng, E. Du, Y. Guo, S. Liu, J. Wu, Y. He, H. Ma, Characterizing the microstructures of biological tissues using mueller matrix and transformed polarization param- eters, Biomedical optics express 5 (12) (2014) 4223–4234, (DOI: 10.1364/BOE.5.004223)

    2014 doi

  12. [19]

    Sieryi, Y

    O. Sieryi, Y. Ushenko, V. Ushenko, O. Dubolazov, A. V. Syvokorovskaya, O. Vanchulyak, A. G. Ushenko, M. Gorsky, Y. Tomka, A. Bykov, et al., Optical anisotropy composition of benign and malignant prostate tissues revealed by mueller-matrix imaging, Biomedical Optics Express 13 ...

    2022 doi

  13. [20]

    Chue-Sang, N

    J. Chue-Sang, N. Holness, M. Gonzalez, J. Greaves, I. Saytashev, S. Stoff, A. Gandjbakhche, V. V. Chernomordik, G. Burkett, J. C. Ramella-Roman, Use of mueller matrix colposcopy in the characterization of cervical collagen anisotropy, Journal of biomedical optics 23 (12) (2018...

    2018 doi

  14. [21]

    Pardo, S

    I. Pardo, S. Bian, J. Gomis-Bresc´ o, E. Pascual, A. Canillas, S. Bosch, O. Arteaga, Wide- field mueller matrix polarimetry for spectral characterization of basic biological tissues: Muscle, fat, connective tissue, and skin, Journal of Biophotonics (2023) e202300252(DOI: 10.10...

    2023 doi

  15. [22]

    Y. Dong, J. Qi, H. He, C. He, S. Liu, J. Wu, D. S. Elson, H. Ma, Quantitatively character- izing the microstructural features of breast ductal carcinoma tissues in different progression stages by mueller matrix microscope, Biomedical optics express 8 (8) (2017) 3643–3655, (DOI...

    2017 doi

  16. [23]

    Y. Wang, H. He, J. Chang, C. He, S. Liu, M. Li, N. Zeng, J. Wu, H. Ma, Mueller ma- trix microscope: a quantitative tool to facilitate detections and fibrosis scorings of liver cir- rhosis and cancer tissues, Journal of biomedical optics 21 (7) (2016) 071112–071112, (DOI: 10.11...

    2016 doi

  17. [24]

    A. G. Clark, D. M. Vignjevic, Modes of cancer cell invasion and the role of the microenviron- ment, Current opinion in cell biology 36 (2015) 13–22, (DOI: 10.1016/j.ceb.2015.06.004)

    2015 doi

  18. [25]

    Keikhosravi, Y

    A. Keikhosravi, Y. Liu, C. Drifka, K. M. Woo, A. Verma, R. Oldenbourg, K. W. Eliceiri, Quan- tification of collagen organization in histopathology samples using liquid crystal based polariza- tion microscopy, Biomed. Opt. Express 8 (9) (2017) 4243–4256, (DOI: 10.1364/BOE.8.004243)

    2017 doi

  19. [26]

    Sugiyama, Y.-J

    S. Sugiyama, Y.-J. Hong, D. Kasaragod, S. Makita, S. Uematsu, Y. Ikuno, M. Miura, Y. Ya- suno, Birefringence imaging of posterior eye by multi-functional jones matrix optical coherence tomography, Biomed. Opt. Express 6 (12) (2015) 4951–4974, (DOI: 110.1364/BOE.6.004951)

    2015

  20. [27]

    M. F. Wood, N. Ghosh, M. A. Wallenburg, S.-H. Li, R. D. Weisel, B. C. Wilson, R.-K. Li, I. A. Vitkin, Polarization birefringence measurements for characterizing the myocardium, including healthy, infarcted, and stem-cell-regenerated tissues, Journal of Biomedical Optics 15 (4)...

    2010 doi

  21. [28]

    Pierangelo, A

    A. Pierangelo, A. Benali, M.-R. Antonelli, T. Novikova, P. Validire, B. Gayet, A. De Martino, Ex-vivo characterization of human colon cancer by mueller polarimetric imaging, Optics express 19 (2) (2011) 1582–1593, (DOI: 10.1364/OE.19.001582)

    2011 doi

  22. [29]

    E. Du, H. He, N. Zeng, M. Sun, Y. Guo, J. Wu, S. Liu, H. Ma, Mueller matrix polarimetry for differentiating characteristic features of cancerous tissues, Journal of biomedical optics 19 (7) (2014) 076013–076013, (DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.19.7.076013). 17

    2014 doi

  23. [30]

    Chipman, W

    R. Chipman, W. S. T. Lam, G. Young, Polarized light and optical systems, CRC press, 2018, (DOI: 10.1201/978135112912)

    2018 doi

  24. [31]

    Ghosh, I

    N. Ghosh, I. A. Vitkin, Tissue polarimetry: concepts, challenges, applications, and outlook, Journal of biomedical optics 16 (11) (2011) 110801–110801, (DOI: 10.1117/1.3652896)

    2011 doi

  25. [32]

    Rodr ´ ıguez, I

    C. Rodr ´ ıguez, I. Est´ evez, E. Gonz´ alez-Arnay, J. Campos, A. Lizana, Optimizing the classifi- cation of biological tissues using machine learning models based on polarized data, Journal of Biophotonics 16 (4) (2023) e202200308, (DOI: 10.1002/jbio.202200308)

    2023 doi

  26. [33]

    Menzel, M

    M. Menzel, M. Axer, K. Amunts, H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, Diattenuation imaging reveals different brain tissue properties, Scientific reports 9 (1) (2019) 1939, (DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019- 38506-w)

    2019 doi

  27. [34]

    Shtein, Y

    I. Shtein, Y. Shelef, Z. Marom, E. Zelinger, A. Schwartz, Z. A. Popper, B. Bar-On, S. Harpaz- Saad, Stomatal cell wall composition: distinctive structural patterns associated with different phylogenetic groups, Annals of Botany 119 (6) (2017) 1021–1033, (DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcw275)

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    J. J. Gil, Polarimetric characterization of light and media: physical quantities involved in polarimetric phenomena, The European Physical Journal-Applied Physics 40 (1) (2007) 1–47, (DOI: 10.1051/epjap:2007153)

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    San Jos´ e, J

    I. San Jos´ e, J. J. Gil, Invariant indices of polarimetric purity: generalized indices of pu- rity for n × n covariance matrices, Optics communications 284 (1) (2011) 38–47, (DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.0807.2171)

    2011 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. J. Gil, On optimal filtering of measured mueller matrices, Applied Optics 55 (20) (2016) 5449–5455, (DOI: 10.1364/AO.55.005449)

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    J. J. Gil, R. Ossikovski, Polarized light and the Mueller matrix approach, CRC press, 2022, (DOI: 10.1201/9780367815578)

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    J. J. Gil, Structure of polarimetric purity of a mueller matrix and sources of depolarization, Optics Communications 368 (2016) 165–173, (DOI: 10.1016/j.optcom.2016.01.092)

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    J. J. Gil, Components of purity of a three-dimensional polarization state, JOSA A 33 (1) (2016) 40–43, (DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.33.000040)

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    S. R. Cloude, Group theory and polarisation algebra, Optik (Stuttgart) 75 (1) (1986) 26–36

    1986

  35. [43]

    Ossikovski, J

    R. Ossikovski, J. Vizet, Eigenvalue-based depolarization metric spaces for mueller matrices, JOSA A 36 (7) (2019) 1173–1186, (DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.36.001173)

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    W. H. Organization, The top 10 causes of death, (Accessed on March 22, 2024) (2020). URL https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ the-top-10-causes-of-death

    2020

  37. [45]

    T. D. Karamitsos, A. Arvanitaki, H. Karvounis, S. Neubauer, V. M. Ferreira, Myocardial tissue characterization and fibrosis by imaging, Cardiovascular Imaging 13 (5) (2020) 1221– 1234, (DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.06.030). 18

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    M. P. Graham-Brown, A. Patel, D. Stensel, D. S. March, A.-M. Marsh, J. McAdam, G. P. McCann, J. O. Burton, et al., Imaging of myocardial fibrosis in patients with end-stage renal disease: current limitations and future possibilities, BioMed Research International 2017, (DOI: 1...

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    I. Ahmad, Review of the emerging role of optical polarimetry in characterization of patho- logical myocardium, Journal of biomedical optics 22 (10) (2017) 100901–100901, (DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.22.10.100901)

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    C. J. Charvet, Mapping human brain pathways: challenges and opportunities in the integration of scales, Brain Behav. Evol 98 (2023) 194–209, (DOI:10.1159/000530317)

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Agrawal, J

    A. Agrawal, J. P. Kapfhammer, A. Kress, H. Wichers, A. Deep, W. Feindel, V. K. Sonntag, R. F. Spetzler, M. C. Preul, Josef klingler’s models of white matter tracts: influences on neuroanatomy, neurosurgery, and neuroimaging, Neurosurgery 69 (2) (2011) 238–254, (DOI: 10.1227/NE...

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Mandonnet, S

    E. Mandonnet, S. Sarubbo, L. Petit, The nomenclature of human white matter association path- ways: proposal for a systematic taxonomic anatomical classification, Frontiers in neuroanatomy 12 (2018) 94, (DOI: 10.3389/fnana.2018.00094)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Van Eeckhout, J

    A. Van Eeckhout, J. J. Gil, E. Garcia-Caurel, J. G. Romero, R. Ossikovski, I. San Jos´ e, I. Moreno, J. Campos, A. Lizana, Unraveling the physical information of depolarizers, Op- tics express 29 (23) (2021) 38811–38823, (DOI: 10.1364/OE.438673). 19 Supplementary Document A Co...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.