Optoacoustic Model-Based Inversion Using Anisotropic Adaptive Total-Variation Regularization

Amir Rosenthal; Gilad Drozdov; Guy Gilboa; Nadav Arbel; Shai Biton

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Optoacoustic Model-Based Inversion Using Anisotropic Adaptive Total-Variation Regularization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adaptive anisotropic total-variation regularization preserves non-convex blood-vessel boundaries in optoacoustic tomography.

desk verdict A clean, honest application of the authors' A2TV regularizer to optoacoustic inversion; the core idea is sound but the headline 4x contrast claim rests on thin experimental support. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02825 v1 pith:YXMUJROW submitted 2019-08-07 eess.IV eess.SP

Shai Biton , Nadav Arbel , Gilad Drozdov , Guy Gilboa , Amir Rosenthal This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVeess.SP

keywords optoacoustictomographyadaptiveanisotropictotalvariationregularizationmodel-basedreconstructionbloodvesselimagingnon-convexboundarypreservationstructuretensorprimal-dualoptimization

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

Optoacoustic tomography reconstructs images from acoustic signals, often from noisy or incomplete data; the paper proposes a new regularization scheme that is designed for the images this modality most often produces, networks of thin, curved blood vessels. The scheme, adaptive anisotropic total-variation (A2TV), replaces the isotropic total-variation penalty with one whose direction is tuned locally to the vessel geometry, so it can smooth noise along vessel walls without rounding their non-convex bends. In numerical simulations on a vascular image and in an experimental phantom of intersecting hairs, the authors show that A2TV preserves vessel morphology under strong regularization better than the standard TV-$L_1$ scheme, and in the experiment a weak hair structure appears with a peak-to-peak signal more than four times higher. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that A2TV is a practical tool for vasculature imaging, where keeping fine curved boundaries is more important than keeping intra-vessel texture.

What carries the argument

The central object is the A2TV functional $J_{\mathrm{A2TV}}(u)=\int_\Omega \|A(x)\nabla u(x)\|_2\,dx$, where $A(x)\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times2}$ is a spatially adaptive tensor that defines an adaptive gradient. The tensor is built from the eigenvalue decomposition of a smoothed structure tensor $J_\rho(\nabla u_{0;\sigma})$ computed from an initial reconstruction: in flat regions its eigenvalues are left equal so the cost reduces to standard isotropic TV, while near edges the eigenvalue along the gradient direction is suppressed so regularization flows along the tangent, preserving boundary curvature. The anisotropy parameter $k$ controls how much of the image is treated anisotropically and thereby the degree of non-convexity that can be preserved. Reconstruction is posed as a generalized ROF model, $u^*=\arg\min_u J_{\mathrm{A2TV}}(u)+\frac{\lambda}{2}\|Mu-p\|_2^2$, and solved with a first-order primal-dual algorithm that alternates between updating the image and updating the tensor $A(x)$.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the claim by imaging a phantom with a known ground-truth vessel whose boundary is deliberately non-convex with high curvature, scanning the regularization parameters for both A2TV and TV-$L_1$, and measuring the distance between the reconstructed boundary and the truth, for example the mean absolute error or Hausdorff distance at matched regularization strength. If TV-$L_1$ preserves the boundary as well as A2TV, or if A2TV's advantage disappears when the ground truth is known, the central claim fails; likewise, if the alternating optimization stalls and the final image depends strongly on initialization, the practical claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a regularizer which adapts its anisotropy to the local image structure, A2TV, can be embedded in model-based optoacoustic inversion and outperforms TV-$L_1$ when the reconstruction target has complex, non-convex boundaries. Concretely, the authors demonstrate on a mouse-retina vasculature image that under strong regularization TV-$L_1$ smears the vessels, while A2TV removes noise between vessels and preserves their curvature; in the sparse-projection (32-projection) simulation TV-$L_1$ attains a lower mean absolute distance because it preserves intra-vessel texture, yet A2TV still better retains fine vessel morphology. On the experimental hair phantom, the A2TV reconstruction achieves the highest image quality, with the bottom weak hair reaching over four times the peak-to-peak signal of the TV-$L_1$ reconstruction. The underlying claim is that A2TV shifts the trade-off frontier: stronger denoising no longer costs the vessel boundary shape.

Load-bearing premise

The image and the adaptive tensor are updated alternately, and although the energy is convex for a fixed tensor, it is non-convex in the joint variables; the paper states there is no mathematical proof of convergence, so the claimed boundary preservation depends on this alternation actually reaching a good fixed point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In optoacoustic images dominated by blood vessels, A2TV permits stronger denoising (lower $\lambda$) without smearing vessel morphology, making weak and small vessels visible that TV-$L_1$ would erase.
Under-sampled data: both A2TV and TV-$L_1$ remove the streak artifacts of unregularized inversion; A2TV sacrifices intra-vessel texture, which the paper treats as an acceptable price for cleaner morphology.
Because the structure-tensor construction is dimension-agnostic, the same A2TV framework extends to 3D and to 4D optoacoustic reconstruction (three spatial dimensions plus time), where TV regularization has already been used.
In applications where vascular morphology is the diagnostic feature, A2TV offers a different operating point on the regularization frontier than TV-$L_1$: equal denoising with less boundary rounding.

Reading between the lines

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

If A2TV's boundary preservation transfers to other ill-posed linear inversions whose targets are thin curved structures, such as ultrasound or x-ray imaging of vessels, the same tensor-adaptation mechanism could replace isotropic TV in those settings; the paper does not test this.
The four-parameter tuning ($\sigma$, $\rho$, $\lambda$, $k$) is the main practical cost; a natural extension would be to make the structure-tensor scales adaptive to local noise or resolution, which could widen the range of $\lambda$ over which A2TV beats TV-$L_1$.
Because A2TV deliberately removes texture inside vessels, it would be unsuitable for imaging tasks where that texture carries information, such as speckle-based flow or red-blood-cell distribution; the paper acknowledges this trade-off but does not quantify it.
The non-convexity of the joint energy suggests a testable diagnostic: recording the full energy or the dual residual over iterations could reveal whether the heuristic convergence seen in the examples is reliable, and whether restarting the tensor update from different initializations changes the reconstruction.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a clean application of the authors' A2TV regularizer to model-based optoacoustic inversion, not a new theory paper. The functional itself is from their prior work; what's new is the structure-tensor construction, the Chambolle-Pock scheme, and tests on simulated vessel images and one hair phantom. On the positive side, the forward model is standard, the algorithm is clearly stated, and the qualitative effect—less boundary rounding than TV-L1 under strong regularization—shows up consistently in the noisy-data simulations and in the phantom. The 1D slice in Fig. 15g does show a weak hair with substantially higher peak-to-peak amplitude in A2TV than in TV-L1. I believe the effect is probably real, in the sense that adaptive anisotropic TV can preserve non-convex structures better than isotropic TV.

The soft spots are exactly where the reader's report puts them. There is no convergence proof for the alternating update of u and A(x); the paper says so in Section 3.2. That limits the theoretical framing but not necessarily the practical value. The experiment is one phantom, no repeats, no error bars, and the 4x figure comes from one normalized slice. With four tuning parameters (sigma, rho, lambda, k) versus two for TV-L1, manual selection on the same data leaves room for overfitting. The comparison also omits the closest baseline, Wang et al.'s directional TV [25], so we cannot tell whether the gain comes from the A2TV functional or just from added adaptivity. One thing the stress-test note gets half-wrong: the sparse-projection simulation is reported honestly—they state TV-L1 achieved the lower MAD and attribute it to better texture preservation. They still lean on visual superiority for A2TV, which is weaker evidence, but they did not hide the quantitative result. The citation pattern is fine: [26] is their own theory paper and [25] is properly credited.

Who is this for: people working on regularization for optoacoustic or other linear inverse problems with vessel-like structure. It is not a breakthrough and not a definitive validation, but it is a serious, well-written engineering contribution with an honest limitation section. It deserves peer review, and a referee should ask for a controlled parameter-selection protocol and the missing comparison to [25] before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an adaptive anisotropic total-variation (A2TV) regularizer for model-based optoacoustic tomography. The tensor A(x) is constructed from an initial estimate using structure-tensor eigenvalue analysis, and the reconstruction minimizes the A2TV energy together with a quadratic data-fidelity term, solved by a Chambolle-Pock-type algorithm in which the tensor is updated within the iterations. The method is evaluated on simulated mouse-retina vasculature images with additive Gaussian noise and with 32 projections, and on an experimental phantom of four intersecting hairs. The authors claim that A2TV preserves non-convex blood-vessel boundaries and enhances weak-structure contrast better than TV-L1 regularization.

Significance. If the claims are established, A2TV would provide a practical regularization framework that avoids the boundary-rounding artifact of conventional TV while enabling stronger denoising, with natural extensions to 3D and 4D optoacoustic imaging. The paper contains a clear forward-model formulation, an explicit algorithm description, and both numerical and experimental demonstrations. However, the central comparative claims currently rest on manual parameter selection, a single experimental phantom without repeated measurements, a visual morphology assessment in the case where the quantitative metric favors TV-L1, and an unproved convergence of the adaptive alternating scheme. These issues must be resolved before the claimed advantage over TV-L1 can be considered robust.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2 and Algorithm 1] The manuscript explicitly states in Section 3.2 that there is no mathematical proof of convergence of the alternating minimization, and Algorithm 1 updates the tensor A(x) inside the Chambolle-Pock iterations (step 12), which changes the operator K during the primal-dual update. Because the reconstructions and the comparison in Sections 4 and 5 depend on the fixed point of this procedure, the lack of a convergence guarantee is load-bearing. Please provide empirical convergence evidence (e.g., residual norms of u and A versus iteration count, or a fixed-point distance measure) for the noisy, sparse, and experimental cases, or give a proof under reasonable assumptions.
[Section 4, Figs. 9-11] In the sparse-projection case the paper reports that TV-L1 achieves a lower MAD than A2TV (text near Figs. 9-11) and then claims superiority of A2TV based on visual inspection of vessel morphology. A quantitative metric such as boundary localization error, Dice overlap of a segmented vessel mask, or structural similarity must be reported to support the claim that A2TV preserves non-convex structures better; otherwise the central comparative conclusion is contradicted by the stated MAD values.
[Section 5, Fig. 15] The experimental support is a single agar phantom, with no repeated measurements and no error bars, and the reported 4x peak-to-peak improvement in weak-hair contrast is read from one normalized 1D slice (Fig. 15g). The choice of the displayed reconstructions (Figs. 13e and 14e) from the parameter grid is not justified by any stated selection rule. To support the contrast-enhancement claim, the authors should report statistics over multiple slices and repeated measurements and define the parameter-selection criterion before evaluating the reconstructions.
[Section 5 and comparison to [25]] The adaptive directional TV method of Wang et al. [25] is cited in the Introduction but is never compared against numerically or experimentally. Since A2TV's additional adaptive degrees of freedom may be responsible for the reported gains, including [25] as a baseline (or explicitly arguing why it is not applicable to the settings considered) is necessary to attribute the improvement specifically to A2TV rather than to the added adaptivity.

minor comments (5)

[Algorithm 1, line 7] The displayed update contains the string 'xxxxxx' between the two proximal arguments; this appears to be a typographical artifact and should be corrected.
[Section 4] Please state explicitly whether the MAD-based parameter selection used the true image as an oracle; if so, discuss the implications for the comparison and whether a validation-set rule would change the conclusions.
[Section 5] The text does not specify the number of experimental measurements or the protocol for identifying the weak hair structure; please add these details for reproducibility.
[Section 4 and Algorithm 1] The stopping criterion for 'numerical convergence' is not quantified; please report the iteration count at which the reconstructions stabilize in terms of the change in u and A.
[Reference [26]] Reference [26] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if it has since been published in a peer-reviewed venue, please update the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adaptive tensor construction is disclosed as a design choice, and the self-citation to [26] supplies independent mathematical support rather than a circular premise.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step in which a claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The adaptive tensor A(x) in Eqs. (18)-(20) is intentionally constructed from an initial estimate u0 so that regularization is weaker across detected edges, and the paper states this design goal explicitly: "In order to preserve structure, we should change the relation between those eigenvalues so that for flat-like areas in the image we will smooth the image in an isotropic way, while for edge-like areas, we will perform more smoothing in the tangent direction rather the gradient one." This is an openly adaptive regularizer, not a hidden fit renamed as a prediction. The theoretical statement that A2TV admits stable non-convex and high-curvature structures is imported from the authors' prior work [26], but that is a mathematical analysis of the same functional rather than an assertion already containing the OAT reconstruction results, and the paper's comparative claims are also supported by the numerical and experimental demonstrations in Sections 4 and 5. The parameter choices, including the lowest-MAD selection in the numerical study and manual selection in the phantom experiment, create in-sample comparison and reproducibility concerns, but they are not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The central experimental comparisons are against a standard TV-L1 baseline on the same data and are not forced by the definition of A2TV, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on four hand-set parameters (sigma, rho, lambda, k), on the reliability of edge directions derived from an initial reconstruction, on the A2TV shape-preservation results of the authors' own prior work, and on the practical convergence of an alternating scheme that lacks a proof. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

sigma (image-gradient smoothing in structure tensor) = 1.5 pixels
Gaussian standard deviation for u0;sigma in Eq. (13); chosen by hand as a trade-off between noise suppression and detail preservation, stated in Sections 4 and 5.
rho (structure-tensor smoothing) = 3 pixels (noisy case), 1 pixel (sparse-angle and experimental)
Gaussian standard deviation for the kernel kappa_rho in Eq. (13); selected per experiment without a formal criterion.
lambda (fidelity weight in Eq. (22)) = Values such as 0.0001 and others scanned in Figs. 6-15
Controls regularization strength; in simulations the lowest-MAD value was chosen, in experiments the visually best value, making performance partly dependent on parameter selection.
k (anisotropy threshold) = Values such as 1.0, 0.1, 0.01 scanned in figures
Threshold in c(s;k) in Eq. (20); lower k gives stronger anisotropy. This parameter encodes the method's central assumption about vessel geometry and is fitted per example.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The discrete model p=Mu in Eq. (4), with the linear-interpolation pixel model of [32], accurately represents the optoacoustic forward problem for the geometry used.
Every reconstruction inverts this matrix; discrepancies between model and physical system would change the comparison between regularizers.
standard math The stable-set results of the authors' earlier A2TV analysis [26] correctly characterize which shapes are preserved by A2TV regularization.
The paper cites [26] to justify that A2TV preserves non-convex, high-curvature vessel-like structures (Section 1, Fig. 2). This theorem is not proved or checked in the present paper and is self-cited.
domain assumption The initial reconstruction u0 (LSQR or TV) provides sufficiently reliable edge orientations for the structure tensor, so that A(x) genuinely represents vessel boundaries rather than artifacts.
Tensor A is built from u0 in Eq. (18); if the initial image has strong artifacts or noise, the anisotropy directions may be wrong and bias the final reconstruction.
ad hoc to paper The alternating minimization in Algorithm 1 converges practically to a good solution even though no proof is given.
Section 3.2 explicitly notes the energy is not convex in the joint variables and no convergence proof exists; the method's success relies on heuristic convergence observed in examples.
domain assumption In the experimental study, the hairs lie approximately in the 2D imaging plane so that the 2D reconstruction and the photograph are comparable.
The experimental section states the detectors were cylindrically focused to approximate 2D imaging and the phantom was prepared to keep hairs in one plane; out-of-plane structures would confound the visual comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optoacoustic Model-Based Inversion Using Anisotropic Adaptive Total-Variation Regularization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXMUJROW

@misc{pith2026190802825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optoacoustic Model-Based Inversion Using Anisotropic Adaptive Total-Variation Regularization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXMUJROW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02825}
}

abstract

In optoacoustic tomography, image reconstruction is often performed with incomplete or noisy data, leading to reconstruction errors. Significant improvement in reconstruction accuracy may be achieved in such cases by using nonlinear regularization schemes, such as total-variation minimization and $L_1$-based sparsity-preserving schemes. In this paper, we introduce a new framework for optoacoustic image reconstruction based on adaptive anisotropic total-variation regularization, which is more capable of preserving complex boundaries than conventional total-variation regularization. The new scheme is demonstrated in numerical simulations on blood-vessel images \textcolor{black} {as well as on experimental data} and is shown to be more capable than the total-variation-$L_1$ scheme in enhancing image contrast.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02825 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An illustration of the structure of vectors p and u used in the matrix construction in Eq. (4). model-based framework described in the previous sub-section, which involves inverting the matrix relation in Eq. (4) to recover u from p. The most basic method to invert Eq. (4) is based on solving the following optimization problem: u ∗ = arg min ||p − Mu||2 2 , (5) where u ∗ is the solution and || · ||2 is the L2 norm. … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An illustration of sets which are stable for TV and A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An illustration of the tensor A(x). At any point the tensor rotates and rescales the coordinate system in an image-driven manner. It assumes some approximation u0 of the data exists. The tensor is designed such that lower regularization is applied across edges (top left ellipse) whereas in flat regions regularization is applied in an isotropic manner (bottom right circle). 3.2. Reconstruction based on A2TV The recon… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) The originating image on which all the reconstructions were per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a-i) The reconstruction of the image shown in Fig. 5a for the case of additive Gaussian noise using different parameters for the TV-L1 case. The reconstructions were performed with 3000 iterations. a lower MAD, the higher ability of A2TV to preserve the fine details o…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (a-i) The reconstruction of the image shown in Fig. 5a for the case of additive Gaussian noise using different parameters for the A2TV case. The reconstructions were performed with 3000 iterations. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: (a-i) The reconstruction of the image shown in Fig. 5a for the case of under-sampled projection data using different parameters for the A2TV case. The reconstructions were performed with 1500 iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (a-i) The reconstruction of the image shown in Fig. 5a for the case of under-sampled projection data using different parameters for the TV-L1 case. The reconstructions were performed with 1000 iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: (a-i) The reconstruction of the image shown in Fig. 12a for the case of experimental data using different parameters for the TV-L1 case. The reconstructions were performed with 3000 iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: (a-i) The reconstruction of the image shown in Fig. 12a for the case of experimental data using different parameters for the A2TV case. The reconstructions were performed with 6000 iterations. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: (a-c) The reconstruction of the image shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[25]

J. Wang, C. Zhang, Y . Wang, A photoacoustic imaging reconstruc- tion method based on directional total variation with adaptive directivity, Biomedical engineering online 16 (2017) 64

work page 2017
[26]

Adaptive Anisotropic Total Variation - A Nonlinear Spectral Analysis

S. Biton, G. Gilboa, Adaptive anisotropic total variation - a nonlinear spectral analysis, ArXiv preprint 1811.11281 (2018)

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[1]

Ntziachristos, Going deeper than microscopy: the optical imaging frontier in biology, Nature methods 7 (2010) 603

V . Ntziachristos, Going deeper than microscopy: the optical imaging frontier in biology, Nature methods 7 (2010) 603. 10

work page 2010
[2]

L. V . Wang, S. Hu, Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs, science 335 (2012) 1458–1462

work page 2012
[3]

Ntziachristos, D

V . Ntziachristos, D. Razansky, Molecular imaging by means of multi- spectral optoacoustic tomography (msot), Chemical reviews 110 (2010) 2783–2794

work page 2010
[4]

Taruttis, V

A. Taruttis, V . Ntziachristos, Advances in real-time multispectral optoa- coustic imaging and its applications, Nature Photonics 9 (2015) 219

work page 2015
[5]

L. V . Wang, Multiscale photoacoustic microscopy and computed tomog- raphy, Nature photonics 3 (2009) 503

work page 2009
[6]

Rosenthal, V

A. Rosenthal, V . Ntziachristos, D. Razansky, Acoustic inversion in op- toacoustic tomography: A review, Current medical imaging reviews 9 (2013) 318–336

work page 2013

Show all 44 references

[7]

Buehler, E

A. Buehler, E. Herzog, D. Razansky, V . Ntziachristos, Video rate optoa- coustic tomography of mouse kidney perfusion, Optics letters 35 (2010) 2475–2477

2010
[8]

X. L. De ´an-Ben, S. J. Ford, D. Razansky, High-frame rate four dimen- sional optoacoustic tomography enables visualization of cardiovascular dynamics and mouse heart perfusion, Scientiﬁc reports 5 (2015) 10133

2015
[9]

Y . Xu, L. V . Wang, Time reversal and its application to tomography with diﬀracting sources, Physical review letters 92 (2004) 033902

2004
[10]

M. Xu, L. V . Wang, Universal back-projection algorithm for photoacous- tic computed tomography, Physical Review E 71 (2005) 016706

2005
[11]

R. J. Schulze, O. Scherzer, G. Zangerl, M. Holotta, D. Meyer, F. Handle, R. Nuster, G. Paltauf, On the use of frequency-domain reconstruction algorithms for photoacoustic imaging, Journal of biomedical optics 16 (2011) 086002

2011
[12]

Rosenthal, Algebraic determination of back-projection operators for optoacoustic tomography, Biomed

A. Rosenthal, Algebraic determination of back-projection operators for optoacoustic tomography, Biomed. Opt. Express 9 (2018) 5173–5193

2018
[13]

Calvetti, S

D. Calvetti, S. Morigi, L. Reichel, F. Sgallari, Tikhonov regularization and the l-curve for large discrete ill-posed problems, Journal of computa- tional and applied mathematics 123 (2000) 423–446

2000
[14]

Z. Yuan, C. Wu, H. Zhao, H. Jiang, Imaging of small nanoparticle- containing objects by ﬁnite-element-based photoacoustic tomography, Optics letters 30 (2005) 3054–3056

2005
[15]

Y . Han, S. Tzoumas, A. Nunes, V . Ntziachristos, A. Rosenthal, Sparsity- based acoustic inversion in cross-sectional multiscale optoacoustic imag- ing, Medical physics 42 (2015) 5444–5452

2015
[16]

Provost, F

J. Provost, F. Lesage, The application of compressed sensing for photo- acoustic tomography, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 28 (2009) 585–594

2009
[17]

Z. Guo, C. Li, L. Song, L. V . Wang, Compressed sensing in photoacoustic tomography in vivo, Journal of biomedical optics 15 (2010) 021311

2010
[18]

Liang, H

D. Liang, H. F. Zhang, L. Ying, Compressed-sensing photoacoustic imag- ing based on random optical illumination, International Journal of Func- tional Informatics and Personalised Medicine 2 (2009) 394–406

2009
[19]

M. Sun, N. Feng, Y . Shen, X. Shen, L. Ma, J. Li, Z. Wu, Photoacoustic imaging method based on arc-direction compressed sensing and multi- angle observation, Optics express 19 (2011) 14801–14806

2011
[20]

J. Meng, L. V . Wang, L. Ying, D. Liang, L. Song, Compressed-sensing photoacoustic computed tomography in vivo with partially known sup- port, Optics Express 20 (2012) 16510–16523

2012
[21]

X. Liu, D. Peng, W. Guo, X. Ma, X. Yang, J. Tian, Compressed sens- ing photoacoustic imaging based on fast alternating direction algorithm, Journal of Biomedical Imaging 2012 (2012) 12

2012
[22]

K. Wang, E. Y . Sidky, M. A. Anastasio, A. A. Oraevsky, X. Pan, Limited data image reconstruction in optoacoustic tomography by constrained to- tal variation minimization, in: Photons Plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing 2011, volume 7899, International Society for Optics and ...

2011
[23]

L. Yao, H. Jiang, Enhancing ﬁnite element-based photoacoustic tomogra- phy using total variation minimization, Applied Optics 50 (2011) 5031– 5041

2011
[24]

L. Yao, H. Jiang, Photoacoustic image reconstruction from few-detector and limited-angle data, Biomedical optics express 2 (2011) 2649–2654

2011
[27]

Andreu, C

F. Andreu, C. Ballester, V . Caselles, J. M. Maz´on, Minimizing total vari- ation ﬂow, Diﬀerential and Integral Equations 14 (2001) 321–360

2001
[28]

Peura, J

M. Peura, J. Iivarinen, E ﬃciency of simple shape descriptors, in: Pro- ceedings of the third international workshop on visual form, volume 443, Citeseer, 1997, p. 451

1997
[29]

R. A. Kruger, P. Liu, Y . Fang, C. R. Appledorn, et al., Photoacoustic ultrasound (paus)reconstruction tomography, Medical physics 22 (1995) 1605–1609

1995
[30]

D. T. Blackstock, Fundamentals of physical acoustics, John Wiley & Sons, 2000

2000
[31]

Paltauf, J

G. Paltauf, J. Viator, S. Prahl, S. Jacques, Iterative reconstruction algo- rithm for optoacoustic imaging, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112 (2002) 1536–1544

2002
[32]

Rosenthal, D

A. Rosenthal, D. Razansky, V . Ntziachristos, Fast semi-analytical model- based acoustic inversion for quantitative optoacoustic tomography, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 29 (2010) 1275–1285

2010
[33]

C. C. Paige, M. A. Saunders, Lsqr: An algorithm for sparse linear equa- tions and sparse least squares, ACM transactions on mathematical soft- ware 8 (1982) 43–71

1982
[35]

Grasmair, F

M. Grasmair, F. Lenzen, Anisotropic total variation ﬁltering, Applied Mathematics & Optimization 62 (2010) 323–339

2010
[36]

Weickert, Anisotropic di ﬀusion in image processing, volume 1, Teub- ner Stuttgart, 1998

J. Weickert, Anisotropic di ﬀusion in image processing, volume 1, Teub- ner Stuttgart, 1998

1998
[37]

Chambolle, T

A. Chambolle, T. Pock, A ﬁrst-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging, Journal of mathematical imaging and vision 40 (2011) 120–145

2011
[38]

A. Dima, N. C. Burton, V . Ntziachristos, Multispectral optoacoustic to- mography at 64, 128, and 256 channels, Journal of biomedical optics 19 (2014) 036021

2014
[39]

P. Wray, L. Lin, P. Hu, L. V . Wang, Photoacoustic computed tomography of human extremities, Journal of biomedical optics 24 (2019) 026003

2019
[40]

Matsumoto, Y

Y . Matsumoto, Y . Asao, A. Yoshikawa, H. Sekiguchi, M. Takada, M. Furu, S. Saito, M. Kataoka, H. Abe, T. Yagi, et al., Label-free pho- toacoustic imaging of human palmar vessels: a structural morphological analysis, Scientiﬁc reports 8 (2018) 786

2018
[41]

M. Toi, Y . Asao, Y . Matsumoto, H. Sekiguchi, A. Yoshikawa, M. Takada, M. Kataoka, T. Endo, N. Kawaguchi-Sakita, M. Kawashima, et al., Visu- alization of tumor-related blood vessels in human breast by photoacoustic imaging system with a hemispherical detector array, Scientiﬁc...

2017
[42]

X. L. De ´an-Ben, H. L ´opez-Schier, D. Razansky, Optoacoustic micro- tomography at 100 volumes per second, Scientiﬁc Reports 7 (2017) 6850

2017
[43]

Gateau, A

J. Gateau, A. Chekkoury, V . Ntziachristos, Ultra-wideband three- dimensional optoacoustic tomography, Optics letters 38 (2013) 4671– 4674

2013
[44]

M. Omar, M. Schwarz, D. Soliman, P. Symvoulidis, V . Ntziachristos, Pushing the optical imaging limits of cancer with multi-frequency-band raster-scan optoacoustic mesoscopy (rsom), Neoplasia 17 (2015) 208– 214

2015
[45]

¨Ozbek, X

A. ¨Ozbek, X. L. De ´an-Ben, D. Razansky, Optoacoustic imaging at kilo- hertz volumetric frame rates, Optica 5 (2018) 857–863. 11

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

J. Wang, C. Zhang, Y . Wang, A photoacoustic imaging reconstruc- tion method based on directional total variation with adaptive directivity, Biomedical engineering online 16 (2017) 64

work page 2017

[2] [26]

Adaptive Anisotropic Total Variation - A Nonlinear Spectral Analysis

S. Biton, G. Gilboa, Adaptive anisotropic total variation - a nonlinear spectral analysis, ArXiv preprint 1811.11281 (2018)

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[3] [1]

Ntziachristos, Going deeper than microscopy: the optical imaging frontier in biology, Nature methods 7 (2010) 603

V . Ntziachristos, Going deeper than microscopy: the optical imaging frontier in biology, Nature methods 7 (2010) 603. 10

work page 2010

[4] [2]

L. V . Wang, S. Hu, Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs, science 335 (2012) 1458–1462

work page 2012

[5] [3]

Ntziachristos, D

V . Ntziachristos, D. Razansky, Molecular imaging by means of multi- spectral optoacoustic tomography (msot), Chemical reviews 110 (2010) 2783–2794

work page 2010

[6] [4]

Taruttis, V

A. Taruttis, V . Ntziachristos, Advances in real-time multispectral optoa- coustic imaging and its applications, Nature Photonics 9 (2015) 219

work page 2015

[7] [5]

L. V . Wang, Multiscale photoacoustic microscopy and computed tomog- raphy, Nature photonics 3 (2009) 503

work page 2009

[8] [6]

Rosenthal, V

A. Rosenthal, V . Ntziachristos, D. Razansky, Acoustic inversion in op- toacoustic tomography: A review, Current medical imaging reviews 9 (2013) 318–336

work page 2013