Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics 224 (2020) 165508

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optik
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijleo

Comparative study of Mueller matrix transformation and polar

decomposition for optical characterization of turbid media
Muaz Iqbal a, 1, Iftikhar Ahmad b, *, 1, Ahmar Khaliq a, Shamim Khan a
a
Department of Physics, Islamia College Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
b
Institute of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine (IRNUM), Peshawar, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mueller matrix polarimetry (MMP) is a fast and non-invasive optical technique for character­
Mueller matrix ization of turbid media such as biological tissues, where the experimental Mueller matrix M
Polarimetry contains the complete information of polarization properties of the sample. The individual optical
Mueller matrix polar decomposition
properties in M are present in a complex interwoven way and need to be extracted; Mueller matrix
Mueller matrix transformation
Depolarization
polar decomposition (MMPD) and Mueller matrix transformation (MMT) are two widely used
Anisotropy methods for this purpose. Here, we compared these two methods (i.e., MMPD and MMT) and
assessed the possible correlation between their corresponding parameters in a comprehensive
sample cohort containing different types of tissues and associated pathologies (n = 47), tissue
phantoms (n = 21) and standard optical components (e.g., air, polarizer, quarter wave plate, etc.)
(n = 09). Specifically, we calculated two sets of optical variables (ΔT , b) and (δ, t) representing
depolarization and retardance for the MMPD and MMT methods, respectively. Qualitative cor­
relation via graphical tools (i.e., violin, parallel coordinate, scatter, Bland and Altman plots) in
tandem with correlation coefficients was investigated. The parameters of both methods are
indicative of the structural features of the turbid samples; however, the MMT parameters (b, t)
give higher values than the MMPD parameters (ΔT , δ) with moderate statistical correlation. This
study assessed the link between the two methods and would provide a useful reference for such
comparative analyses.

1. Introduction

Mueller matrix polarimetry (MMP) is a fast and non-invasive optical technique for characterization of turbid media such as bio­
logical tissues, where the polarized light measurements collect the polarization fingerprints of the sample, and subsequently use them
to detect, identify and differentiate various regions of the turbid sample [1–5]. The first step of MMP technique is to measure the 4 × 4
Mueller matrix M, which contains the complete set of polarization properties (i.e., 16 in number) of the sample: these properties are
divided in three fundamental groups, named as the depolarization, birefringence/retardance and diattenuation. Each group of these
optical parameters is correlated to the microarchitecture (i.e., structure, function and morphology) of the sample, thereby exhibit
critical role in the physical interpretation of the optical results of MMP.
The information of individual polarization parameters in M are present in a complicated interwoven way, potentially hindering

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: iahmadmp@gmail.com (I. Ahmad).
1
Authors contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.165508
Received 20 June 2020; Accepted 26 August 2020
Available online 1 October 2020
0030-4026/© 2020 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

their unique interpretation. Consequently, M need further analysis to isolate individual polarization properties. Many methods have
been proposed for separating the individual polarization properties from the experimentally measured M of the turbid sample [6–8].
Among these, the Mueller matrix polar decomposition (MMPD) proposed by Lu and Chipman has received significant attention and
commonly used in polarimetry of the turbid media [8]. The MMPD comprise of breaking up the given M into the product of three basis
matrices, each base matrix corresponds to one set of the three fundamental polarization properties. In particular, the basis matrices
MΔ , MR and MD correspond to the depolarization, retardance and diattenuation, respectively. The MMPD assumes sequential
occurrence of the three fundamental groups of polarization effects in the turbid media and a corresponding sequential order of the
‘basis’ matrices in the decomposition scheme. However, this assumption is not consistent with the real scenario of simultaneously
occurring polarimetry effects in the turbid media. Moreover, the non-commuting nature of the basis matrices in the MMPD also in­
troduces potential ambiguity in the resultant polarization variables. To address such issues, several other decomposition methods have
been proposed, developed and implemented.
Mueller matrix transformation (MMT) method has been recently introduced to derive the polarization parameters from the M [9].
Contrary to the MMPD, the MMT algorithm does not provide the individual polarization metrics by decomposing the M, rather a subset
of the Mueller matrix elements is used to obtain a new set of analytical parameters, which is related to the polarization metrics.
Specifically, nine (out of sixteen) elements of the M have been fitted to trigonometric functions to derive the set of MMT parameters
which are indicative of depolarization, retardance/anisotropy and direction of fibrous structures. The MMT parameters describe only a
subset of polarization properties contained in the M; the anisotropy and depolarization are partially described while overlooking the
diattenuation information. Nevertheless, the use of MMT in tissue polarimetry has been significantly increased. That said, a
comparative study of the two methods (i.e., MMPD and MMT) is required. The analyses of polarization metrics derived via the widely
used MMPD and MMT is also necessary to establish a link between the two algorithms. Although, some previous studies have per­
formed such comparisons in limited sample cohorts, a comparative study with a comprehensive sample cohort, which is representative
of all practical situations, still seems missing. Therefore, this issue has been investigated by performing a comprehensive analysis of
MMPD and MMT methods used in MMP in a large sample cohort containing a wide variety of turbid samples.

2. Methods and materials

2.1. Mueller matrix polar decomposition

Measuring the experimental Mueller matrix M of a turbid sample has been extensively described [10–13]. To isolate the individual
polarization variables, the MMPD algorithm starts with decomposing the M into the product of three basis matrices such that
M = MΔ MR MD (1)

where, each base matrix (MΔ , MR and MD ) corresponds to one set of the three fundamental polarization parameters (depolarization,
retardance and diattenuation, respectively). The basis matrices essentially require further analyses to arrive at the individual polar­
ization properties of the particular group. Specifically, the base depolarization matrix MΔ is further decomposed to calculate the total-,
linear-, and circular-depolarization (ΔT , ΔL , ΔC ) as
|tr(mΔ )|
ΔT = 1 − (2)
3

|mΔ (1, 1) + mΔ (2, 2)|

ΔL = 1 − (3)
2

ΔC = 1 − |mΔ (3, 3) | (4)

where mΔ is a 3 × 3 sub-matrix obtained by omitting the first row and first column of the MΔ while the operator “tr” depicts the “trace”
i.e., sum of diagonal elements of the square matrix. The total depolarization shows the combined effect of linear and circular depo­
larization. Likewise, the base retardance matrix MR is further decomposed to calculate the total-, linear- and circular retardance
magnitudes (RT , δ, Ψ ) as
[ ]
tr(MR )
RT = cos− 1 − 1 (5)
2
[√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
δ = cos− 1
{MR (2, 2) + MR (3, 3) }2 + {MR (3, 2) − MR (2, 3) }2 − 1 (6)

[ ]
MR (3, 2) − MR (2, 3)
Ψ = tan− 1
(7)
MR (2, 2) + MR (3, 3)
These representative polarization metrics elucidate an overview of the MMPD method while further details of the methodology can
be found in our previous studies [10–13].

2
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

2.2. Mueller matrix transformation

The Mueller matrix transformation (MMT) method makes use of a subset of Mueller matrix elements to define a set of empirical
parameters that are associated with specific structural details of the sample. Specifically, the set of MMT parameters is indicative of
depolarization, anisotropy and direction of fibrous structures.
The set of MMT parameters, represented by b, t (t has three different variants t1 , t2 , t3 ) and A are defined as
b = 0.5{M (2, 2) + M(3, 3)} (8)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
t1 = {M (4, 2) }2 + {M(3, 4) }2 (9)

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
t2 = 0.5( {M (2, 2) − M(3, 3) }2 + {M (2, 3) + M(3, 2) }2 (10)
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
t3 = 0.5 {M (2, 1) }2 + {M(3, 1) }2 (11)

[ ]
2 b. t
A= 2 2
ε 0, 1 (12)
b +t
The MMT parameter b is associated with and sensitive to the depolarization properties (i.e., structure and density of scattering
centers) of the sample. The second MMT parameter t (t1 , t2 , t3 ) has been correlated to the degree of anisotropy/retardance of the media,
while the normalized MMT parameter A has an explicit role in the determination of the degree of anisotropy [9,14–16].

2.3. Literature survey

To compare and establish a link between the MMPD and MMT algorithms in a large cohort of samples, the relevant optical
polarimetry data were compiled through a detailed online search. The data of complete Mueller matrix per se were collected for a wide
variety of samples, including different types of tissues and associated pathologies, tissue phantoms and standard optical components (e.
g., air, polarizer, quarter wave plate, etc.). The online published literature was interrogated via ten electronic bibliographic databases,
which included ScienceDirect, PubMed, EBM Reviews, CCRCT, Embase, LILACS, Wiley, Ovid, SciELO and Web of Science. The search
words explored were “Mueller matrix”, and “polarimetry” individually and in combination with “polar decomposition”, “Mueller
matrix transformation”, “depolarization”, “retardance”, “polarization properties”, “birefringence”, “biological tissue”, “phantoms”,
and “cancer”.

Fig. 1. The PRISMA flow chart. The electronic search using ten bibliographic databases (i.e., ScienceDirect, PubMed, EBM Reviews, CCRCT,
Embase, LILACS, Wiley, Ovid, SciELO and Web of Science) identified 1412 studies. Duplicate studies (i.e., appearing in more than one database)
were 317, title/abstract screening exclude 412 studies, 617 studies did not report the Mueller matrices, while the Mueller matrix data (i.e., 16
elements) were not complete in 33 studies. Excluding all these, 30 studies were included for the comparative analyses.

3
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

The initial survey of the literature was conducted by one reviewer (i.e., MI), followed by two independent reviewers (i.e., AK and IA)
to double-check the title and abstract of the studies and assess their relevance to this study. In case of duplication (i.e., if the same study
appears in more than one database), the study was included only once. All the primary phases of the literature identification, screening,
eligibility and inclusion have been demonstrated in the PRISMA flow chart diagram (Fig. 1).
The data collection from the selected articles were carried out by one reviewer (i.e., MI) and verified by another reviewer (i.e., SK).
The data extracted from each study includes sample type (i.e., phantom, tissue, optical component), basic characteristics of phantoms,
origin of the tissue sample (i.e., human, pig, mouse, rate), tissue sample histopathology, details of the experimental setup (i.e., light
source, wavelength, power, forward vs. backward geometry), and the complete Mueller matrix. Subsequently, the data of the Mueller
matrix per se were employed to calculate the optical variables using the MMPD and the set of MMT parameters.

2.4. Data analyses

To quantitatively compare the MMPD and MMT methods, we calculated two sets of optical variables using these two algorithms.

Table 1
Summarized description of the tissue samples (n = 47) and the experimental setup of the Mueller matrix polarimetry systems for the studies included
herein.
Sr. No Sample description Experimental setup Ref.

Origin Type Pathology Thickness (μm) Light source λ (nm) Power (W) Geometry

1 Chicken heart
2 Bovine muscle
Normal 28 LED 633 1 B [18]
3 Porcine liver
4 Porcine fat Ex vivo
5 Normal
Human colon 3 Xenon Lamp 400–800 150 F [12]
6 Adenocarcinoma
7 Human cervix – – Halogen lamp 500–700 – B [19]
8 Normal –
Human breast In vitro HeNe laser 632.5 0.005 F [20]
9 Malignant –
10 Normal
Human thyroid Ex vivo 3 Laser 556 0.001 F [21]
11 –
12 Adenoma
F
13 Normal mucosa
Human colon In vivo 1000 Nd:YAG laser 1064 – [22]
14 Normal mucosa
B
15 Adenoma
16 Healthy
17 Squamous cell carcinoma
Human lung cells In vitro 5 Nd:YAG laser 1064 – B [23]
18 Adenocarcinoma
19 Squamous + adeno carcinoma
20 Normal
Human thyroid 4 Green laser 556 0.001 [24]
21 Malignant
22 Normal
Human breast 5 – 632.5 0.002 [25]
23 Ex vivo Cancer F
24 Normal
Human blood – Xenon lamp 500–700 150 [26]
25 Dengue
26 Human Breast – 4 – 632.8 0.002 [27]
27 Nude mouse skin 500 HeNe laser 633 15 [17]
Normal
28 7
29 Pigmented –
– [28]
30 Human skin Normal 1.5
31 In vivo Scar 2
32 Pigmented – White light – [29]
33 Normal
34 Sinclair swine skin Benign 1 Diode laser 635 3.69 [30]
35 Cancer
36 Normal –
37 Ex vivo Mole – HeNe laser 633 [31]
Porcine skin B
38 Cancerous
39 – Normal 0.07– 0.12 [32]
Green laser 550 –
40 Irradiated (10 Gy) [33]
41 Pig skin Ex vivo Normal 8
Diode laser 808 140 [34]
42 Irradiated (60 Gy)
43 Benign lesion White light 635 [35]
44 Normal
45 Human skin In vivo Pigmented – –
HeNe laser 635 [36]
46 Normal
47 Scar tissue

λ = Wavelength; HeNe = Helium Neon; F/B = forward/backward scattering geometry; LED = light emitting diode; Nd: YAG = Neodymium-doped
Yttrium Aluminum garnet.

4
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

Specifically, we determined (ΔT , b) and (δ, t), where the first set of variables symbolize depolarization while the second set of variables
represent retardance for the MMPD and MMT methods, respectively. We have compared δ with all three variants of t (i.e., t1 , t2 , t3 ). To
represent an identical physical phenomenon, ΔT was compared with (1 − b) [14,17]. These two sets of variables were calculated for a
comprehensive cohort of the Mueller matrix data, which comprised of biological tissue samples (n = 47), tissue phantoms (n = 21) and
standard optical elements (Table S1).
Graphical presentation of the data in tandem with the quantitative correlation analysis was also carried out. In particular, the
correlation between the two sets of optical variables (and thus the two algorithms) was assessed with violin, parallel coordinate and
scatter plots. Correlation coefficients were also calculated. Bland and Altman plots were used to further elaborate the agreement and
bias in the two algorithms.

3. Results

Table 1 presents the summary of the tissue samples and the polarized light measurement setups of the studies included herein. The
tissue samples (n = 47) were extricated from different species, including humans, chicken, pig, rat and mouse. A wide range of tissue
samples from skin, thyroid, colon, breast, cervix, lungs, heart, liver, fat and the muscle were optically investigated in these studies; the
tissue pathologies included normal/healthy, benign, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, irradiated samples, malignant
samples, adenoma, tissue scar and pigmented samples; the tissue samples of these pathologies were obtained The complete Mueller
matrix data were extracted from these studies and subsequently used in the two algorithms, i.e., MMPD and MMT. The variations in the
origin, type and pathology of the tissue samples make the comparative analyses robust and versatile.
Table 2 presents the summary of the tissue phantoms (n = 21) of the studies included herein. These tissue phantoms comprise of
three principal components: the polyacrylamide gel, sucrose and polystyrene microspheres. Stretching (strain) in the polyacrylamide
gel induce linear birefringence, sucrose produces optical activity while polystyrene microspheres cause scattering (and thereby de­
polarization). To adjust the linear birefringence, the polyacrylamide phantoms are clamped between a mount and a linear translational
stage, and stretched in a controlled manner; column 7 of Table 2 shows the stretching/extension, and thereby the linear birefringence
of the phantoms. The optical activity and depolarization of the phantoms are adjusted by the quantity of sucrose and polystyrene
microspheres, respectively.
The qualitative comparison of MMPD and MMT methods consisted of the following analytical arguments.

• The MMPD method consists of breaking up the full M into the product of three basis matrices, while no such decomposition exists in
the MMT method. Rather a subset of the M (i.e., only nine out of sixteen elements) is transformed into a set of empirical parameters,
which relate to the structural properties of the sample.

Table 2
Summarized description of the tissue phantoms (n = 21) and the experimental setup of the Mueller matrix polarimetry systems for the studies
included herein.
Sr. Phantom description Experimental setup Ref.
No
μs Х (deg g Δn = ne Extension Sucrose concentration Power λ (nm) Geometry
(mm− 1) /cm) -no (mm) (M) (mW)

1 3 1.96 – – 2 1 1 [37]
2 0 1.96 – – 4 4 –
3 0 – 30 0 0 –
F
4 0 0.95 0 30 – – – [38]
3
5 1.96 1.35E-05 30 – – –
6 1.96 – – 4 1 –
7 1.96 1.35E-05 – – – 15 [6]
8 0 0 – – – –
6 B
9 1.96 0.935 1.36E-05 – – – – [39]
10 1.96 1.36E-05 – – – –
11 1.5 – – – – – – F/B
12 0.6 – – – – – –
0.91 F [40]
13 5 – – – – – –
14 0.6 – – – – – – B
15 0.6 – – – – – 5 –
F [41]
16 5 – – – – – 5 –
17 0.6 – 0.91 – – – 5 – B [42]
18 – – – – – – – 5 F [43]
19 28 – 0.73 – – – – 250 625 B [44]
20 0.6 – – – – 5 –
0.91 632.8 F/B [45]
21 5 – – – – 5 –

μs = Scattering coefficient; χ = optical activity; g = anisotropy parameter; no/ne = refractive index ordinary/extraordinary rays; : = optical thickness;
λ = wavelength; F/B = forward/backward scattering geometry.

5
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

• MMPD is based on decomposing the M in the sequential product of three basis matrices while the MMT comprise of fitting the
elements of the Mto trigonometric functions. Contrary to the MMT algorithm, the three basis matrices of MMPD correspond to three
groups of optical properties (i.e., the depolarization, retardance and diattenuation).
• The MMPD decouples the complete set of sixteen optical properties of the sample while the MMT partially describes the polari­
zation properties contained in the M (i.e., only four empirical parameters).
• In particular, MΔ contains 09 properties related to depolarization, MR have 03 retardance properties and MD comprise of 04
diattenuation-related properties, while the MMT gives one parameter each for depolarization, retardance-magnitude and -direc­
tion. The MMT completely overlooks the diattenuation of the sample.
• MMT is simple to understand and computationally (ten-times) efficient as compared to MMPD.

To quantitatively compare the MMPD and MMT methods, two sets of polarization variables {i.e., depolarization: (ΔT , b) and
retardance: (δ, t)} were calculated from the M. Fig. 2 summarizes the depolarization parameters ΔT and (1 − b) for all tissue (n = 47)
and phantom (n = 21) samples. Specifically, the violin and parallel coordinate plots for tissue samples are presented in Fig. 2A and C,
while for phantom samples in Fig. 2B and D. For violin plots, the width of the curve depicts the density of the samples, while the red
line and the gray dot demonstrate the median and mean values, respectively. The MMT method estimates higher values for the de­
polarization parameter as compared to the MMPD method (i.e., (1 − b) > ΔT ), as inferred from the position and magnitude of peak
and valley in the violin plots (Fig. 2A and 2B); this trend was observed for both tissue and phantom samples. This observation was also
supported by the higher values of mean and median values for (1 − b) as compared to ΔT . This postulate was also consistent with the
trends observed in the corresponding parallel coordinate plots for phantom samples (Fig. 2C and D), where ΔT and (1 − b) were plotted
on the vertical coordinates and a series of lines connecting the two axes project a one-to-one relation of the corresponding data points.
The one-to-one relation in parallel coordinate plots visually describes the higher values of (1 − b) for individual data points, as
obscured in the violin plots.
Linear retardance was the second polarization metric used to compare the MMPD and MMT methods. The magnitude of linear

Fig. 2. The distribution of depolarization parameter for tissue (n = 47) and phantom (n = 21) samples as calculated with the MMPD (ΔT ) and MMT
(1 − b) methods. Violin plots for tissue (A) and phantom (B) samples; the width of the curve is correlated with the sample density/frequency, while
the red line and grey dot represents the median and mean values. Corresponding parallel coordinate plots for tissue (C) and phantom (D) samples;
the parallel vertical coordinates represent the depolarization parameter for the MMPD (ΔT ) and MMT (1 − b) methods, while the series of lines
connected across the axes project a one-to-one relation of the corresponding data points. The MMT method consistently estimates higher values for
the depolarization parameter as compared to the MMPD method. Quantitative results are summarized in Table 3 and Figs. 4 and 5. (For inter­
pretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

6
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

retardance, represented by δ in MMPD and by t in MMT, was calculated from the M using Eqs. (6) and (9)–(11), respectively. We
analyzed all three different definitions of t as given by Eqs. (9)–(11); the results are presented in Fig. 3. The violin plots (Fig. 3A and B)
illustrate the distribution of retardance parameters while the parallel plots show their one-to-one relations for the complete cohort of
samples (Fig. 3C and D). The retardance values cluster narrowly for tissue samples, as opposed to the phantom samples. The MMT
method estimates higher values for the retardance parameter as compared to the MMPD method. Among the three retardance pa­
rameters of MMT (i.e., t1 , t2 , t3 ), the behavior of t1 closely matches with δ, followed by t3 and t2 (Fig. 3A and B). Unlike depolarization
parameters, the trend in the relation of δ and t was more difficult to follow from the parallel plots (Fig. 3C and D). Specifically, MMT
estimated higher values for the retardance parameter in the tissue samples, while the opposite trend (i.e., higher values of δ) was
observed by the phantom samples.
To extend the quantitative comparison of the MMPD and MMT methods, we calculated mean and median values for the depo­
larization (ΔT , 1 − b) and retardance (δ, t) parameters for the cohort of both tissue and phantom samples (Table 3). The mean (ΔT , 1 −
b) percent values were (60.8, 71.9) and (41.3, 56.0) for tissue and phantom samples, respectively; the differences in these values were
statistically significant with p < 0.001 and <0.01, respectively. The comparison of retardance parameter for MMPD and MMT methods
was performed in three groups: (δ, t1 ), (δ, t2 ) and (δ, t3 ) with corresponding mean/p-values values of (0.06, 0.13)/<0.05, (0.06, 0.28)/
<0.001 and (0.06, 0.14)/<0.01 for tissue samples and (0.42, 0.30)/=0.06, (0.42, 0.21)/=0.10 and (0.42, 0.05)/<0.05 for phantom
samples, respectively. The inter-comparison of retardance parameter for MMT method also showed statistically significant differences
(results not shown in Table 3). In particular, the p-values for (t1 vs t2 ), (t2 vs t3 ) and (t1 vs t3 ) were 0.22, <0.01 and <0.001, respec­
tively. The comparison of median values for the depolarization (ΔT , 1 − b) and retardance (δ, t) parameters is also shown in Table 3.
To extend the quantitative comparison of MMPD and MMT methods, Fig. 4 shows the correlation of depolarization parameters
calculated with both methods. Results are plotted for each tissue and phantom sample, calculated using both MMPD and MMT
methods. A perfect correlation would produce identical values for the two depolarization parameters ΔT and 1 − b and thus a slope of
unity. However, the scatter plot demonstrated a moderate correlation between ΔT and 1 − b, and that of the two methods (Fig. 4A).
Specifically, the correlation for the tissue and phantom samples provided a slope = 0.45 and = 0.58, respectively. Fig. 4B shows the
corresponding Bland and Altman plots. Although biases were observed for both tissue and phantom samples (i.e., data points outside ±
1.96 standard deviations), it was consistent with the constant bias.

Fig. 3. The distribution of retardance parameter for tissue (n = 47) and phantom (n = 21) samples as calculated with the MMPD (δ) and MMT (t)
methods. The t1 , t2 , t3 refer to the three different variants of t, as defined by Eqs. (9)–(11). The violin (A, B) and parallel coordinate (C, D) plots for
tissue and phantom samples, respectively. The MMT method estimates higher values for the retardance parameter as compared to the MMPD
method. Quantitative results are summarized in Table 3 and Figs. 4 and 5.

7
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

Table 3
Quantitative comparison of MMPD and MMT methods. Mean and median values of MMPD parameters (ΔT , δ) compared to corresponding MMT
parameters (b, t) for the cohort of tissue (n = 47) and phantom (n = 21) samples.
ΔT (1 − b) p-Value δ t1 p-Value t2 p-Value t3 p-Value

Mean 60.8 71.9 <0.001 0.06 0.13 <0.05 0.28 <0.001 0.14 <0.01
Tissue
Median 69.6 81.6 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.10
Mean 41.3 56.0 <0.01 0.42 0.30 = 0.06 0.21 = 0.1 0.05 <0.01
Phantom
Median 47.3 58.0 0.05 0.14 0.11 0.01

Fig. 4. Comparison of depolarization parameters for MMPD and MMT methods. (A) The depolarization parameter ΔT of MMPD plotted against its
counterpart (1 − b) of MMT for tissue (black hollow squares) and phantom (solid red circles) samples. The two depolarization parameters show
moderate correlation, as the calculated correlation coefficient is R2 = 0.45 for tissue and R2 = 0.58 for phantom samples. (B) The corresponding
Bland and Altman plots also show biases (data points outside ± 1.96 standard deviations). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

Fig. 5 shows the Bland and Altman plots for the retardance parameters of the two methods. Contrary to the single definition of
retardance parameter δ for MMPD method, three different definitions (t1 , t2 , t3 ) are available for the MMT method, as described by
Eqs. (9)–(11); thus three sets of comparisons {(δ, t1 ), (δ, t2 ) and (δ, t3 )} were carried out for the retardance parameters. Fig. 5A and B
depict the Bland and Altman plots of all three sets of retardance parameters for tissue and phantom samples, respectively. Data points
outside ± 1.96 standard deviations for all three sets of retardance parameters were observed in Fig. 5A (tissue samples), as opposed to
Fig. 5B (phantom samples). The tissue samples showed proportional bias for all three sets of retardance parameters. However, the
relation for the retardance parameters is more complicated than the depolarization parameters for the two methods.

4. Discussion

MMPD and MMT methods – the two primary but significantly different approaches – are used to extract individual optical variables
from the Mueller matrix M. Herein, these two methods were compared for a comprehensive cohort of samples. Procedural differences
in these two methods and their subsequent impact on the derived optical variables were thoroughly analyzed. One-to-one comparison

Fig. 5. Comparison of retardance parameters for MMPD and MMT methods. The Bland and Altman plots for retardance parameter δ of MMPD and
its counterparts (t1 , t2 , t3 ) of MMT for tissue (A) and phantom (B) samples. The black solid triangles/black solid line shows the comparison of (δ,
t1 ), black hollow squares/black dotted line shows the comparison of (δ, t2 ) while the red solid circles/red dashed line shows the comparison of (δ,
t3 ). Contrary to phantom samples, all plots show biases (data points outside ± 1.96 standard deviations) for tissue samples. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

8
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

of the corresponding optical variables in the two approaches was investigated using different statistical tools. The results showed
significant differences in the two methods.
Comparative study of the two methods (i.e., MMPD and MMT) uncovered two major sets of corresponding optical variables. The
first such set of optical variables was constituted by parameters representing the depolarization of the probing light beam. Specifically,
the total depolarization is estimated by ΔT and (1 − b) for MMPD (Eq. (2)) and MMT (Eq. (8)), respectively. The depolarization
parameter (1 − b) was higher than ΔT (peak/mean/median positions in the violin plots and one-to-one relation in the parallel plots:
Fig. 2). Also, the mean values of (1 − b) were significantly higher than ΔT with p < 0.001 and <0.01 for tissue and phantom samples,
respectively. These trends can be interpreted in terms of two major factors: the definitions of ΔT and (1 − b), and the algorithm for
decomposition/transformation. First, by definition, ΔT is the mean of three diagonal elements of M {i.e., M (2, 2), M(3, 3) and M (4, 4)}
(Eq. (2)) while (1 − b) is the mean of M (2, 2) and M(3, 3) only (Eq. (8)). For all biological tissues (except blood),
M (2, 2) ≥ M(3, 3) > M (4, 4); thus the mean of all three elements (i.e., ΔT ) is less than the mean of two elements (i.e., 1 − b).
However, these definitions alone would suggest a linear correlation between ΔT and (1 − b), as opposed to the relation observed here.
The algorithm difference for decomposition and transformation also has a significant impact on the derived optical variables.
Specifically, the MMPD algorithm decomposes the experimental M in three basis matrices (Eq. (1)); the depolarization matrix MΔ is
one of these basis matrices. This step of defining the basis matrices isolate the contribution of a particular group of polarization
properties (e.g., depolarization) from the M. For instance, the intrinsic retardance of the turbid sample (primarily reflected in non-
diagonal elements of M) also contribute towards depolarization [46–48]. Such contributions of retardance-influenced depolariza­
tion are isolated in the first step of MMPD (Eq. (1)). Also, since matrix multiplication is non-commuting by nature, the order of the basis
matrices in the decomposition is critical and leads to potential ambiguity in the derived optical variables [49]. That said, the depo­
larization parameter ΔT is defined from MΔ (not directly from M). Alternatively, the depolarization parameter (1 − b) of MMT is directly
defined from M. Skipping the intermediate step of defining the basis matrices considerably simplifies the MMT algorithm, however, the
accuracy of the derived optical variables is compromised, as each element of M also contain contribution from other optical variables.
In summary, (1 − b) overestimate the depolarization with moderate linear correlation with ΔT .
Optical variables related to the magnitude of linear retardance for MMPD and MMT methods were the second set of parameters
used for the comparison; these variables are represented by δ and t, respectively. Contrary to the single definition of the variable δ for
MMPD, three different definitions of t (i.e., t1 , t2 and t3 ) for MMT are available (Eqs.(9)–(11)); thus δ was compared to each of t1 , t2
and t3 . The parameters t1 , t2 and t3 are dimensionless while δ can be expressed in radian or degree. We expressed δ in radians, as its
magnitude in degrees become manifold higher than the corresponding t making the comparison trivial.
The values of retardance parameters (i.e., t1 , t2 and t3 ) were higher than δ, as indicated by the peak/mean/median positions in the
violin plots and parallel plots (Fig. 3). The higher values of retardance parameters for MMT method- compared to MMPD method-
presumably arise from the fundamental differences in definitions and algorithms. The MMT method defines all three retardance pa­
rameters (i.e., t1 , t2 and t3 ) directly from the experimental M. Each of these three retardance parameters is related to a different group
of elements of the M (Eqs.(9)–(11)). This also explains the difference among the values of t1 , t2 and t3 (Fig. 3). Alternatively, δ for
MMPD method is derived in two steps: first, M is decomposed in three basis matrices (Eq. (1)) and second, retardance parameter δ is
defined from the retardance matrix MR (Eq. (6)). Also, the group of M elements defining δ is different from that of t. These arguments
are supported by the graphical representation of the data. Specifically, the scatter plots for (δ, t) (not shown here) showed a moderate
correlation, while the Bland and Altman plots (Fig. 5) depicted bias in the data. Overall, the retardance parameters of both methods are
indicative of the anisotropy of the turbid samples, the MMT parameters (i.e., t1 , t2 and t3 ) give higher values than the MMPD parameter
δ (expressed in radians); however, moderate correlation is observed in the two methods.
The composite parameter A of the MMT method (Eq. (12)) combines both the depolarization and retardance parameters (b and t).
The MMPD method lacks such a composite parameter, hindering its one-to-one comparison with the MMT method. Also, the parameter
A of the MMT method is minimally used for the characterization of turbid samples.
Previously, many studies have compared the MMPD and MMT methods. However, these studies used a limited sample cohort and
compared the final results of the corresponding parameters without analyzing the differences in the algorithms. Sheng et al. compared
the two methods using bulk porcine colon and thin human pathological tissues. The results showed higher values for the MMT pa­
rameters (b, t1 , t2 ) compared to the corresponding MMPD parameters (ΔT , δ), a trend consistent with this study. This study defined two
parameters, T and r2, which correlate the image contrast for the polarization parameter, and the optical parameter to the structural
feature, respectively; however, the correlation of the corresponding set of parameters for MMPD and MMT was not assessed. This study
also reported that MMT method was ten times faster than MMPD method, a comparative parameter overlooked in our study [50].
Badieyan et al. characterized healthy and cancerous human prostate tissues with MMT and MMPD methods. The results indicated that
the parameters of both these methods have sufficient contrast to distinguish between cancerous and healthy tissues. However, the
comparative analysis of MMPD and MMT was missing [51]. The two methods have also been compared using fresh bovine skeletal
muscle, liver tissue and chicken heart; the study claims good agreement of the two methods. However, no quantitative analysis has
been presented [9]. Likewise, the M-derived parameters of the two methods revealed structural features with good contrast for tissues
with Crohn’s disease and gastrointestinal luminal tuberculosis; however, the quantitative correlation was not analyzed [52]. Many
other studies also compared the two methods for the specific type of samples [14,16,53]. Overall, comparison of the previous studies
was limited to qualitative analyses and no quantitative metrics were provided. In contrast, the current study demonstrates quantitative
comparison of the two methods over a comprehensive cohort of samples.

9
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

5. Conclusion

We have compared the two widely used methods of MMPD and MMT in a large cohort of samples, which comprised of a
comprehensive range of tissues (and associated pathologies), tissue phantoms and standard samples. Although the MMT method gives a
partial description of the polarization parameters (only 04 in number), it is simple and ten times faster. Alternatively, the MMPD
method gives the complete set of polarization properties (16 in number). The depolarization- and retardance-related parameters of the
two methods were compared. A qualitative comparison was made via graphical tools, including violin and parallel coordinate plots,
which showed higher values for the MMT parameters. Scatter plots showed moderate correlation between the parameters of the two
methods, while the Bland and Altman plots demonstrated bias in the data. The parameters of both methods fairly indicate the
structural features of the samples. In summary, the MMT parameters have higher values than the MMPD parameters with moderate
statistical correlation.

Funding

There is no financial support/funding agency for this study.

Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

Technical support provided by Dr. Manzoor Ahmad, Islamic International University, Islamabad, Pakistan is highly appreciated.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.
165508.

References

[1] P. Shukla, A. Awasthi, P.K. Pandey, A. Pradhan, Discrimination of normal and dysplasia in cervix tissue by Mueller matrix analysis, SPIE Proceedings Biomedical
Applications of Light Scattering II (2008) 686417.
[2] A. Pierangelo, A. Nazac, A. Benali, P. Validire, H. Cohen, T. Novikova, B.H. Ibrahim, S. Manhas, C. Fallet, R. Antonelli, A. Martino, Polarimetric imaging of
uterine cervix: a case study, Opt. Express 21 (2013) 14120–14130.
[3] V.M. Turzhitsky, A.J. Gomes, Y.L. Kim, Y. Liu, A. Kromine, J.D. Rogers, M. Jameel, H.K. Roy, V. Backman, Measuring mucosal blood supply in vivo with a
polarization gating probe, Appl. Opt. 47 (2008) 6046–6057.
[4] P.G. Ellingsen, L.M.S. Aas, V.S. Hagen, R. Kumar, M.B. Lilledahl, M. Kildemo, Mueller matrix three-dimensional directional imaging of collagen fibers,
J. Biomed. Opt. 19 (2014), 026002.
[5] A. Pierangelo, S. Manhas, A. Benali, C. Fallet, J.-L. Totobenazara, M.-R. Antonelli, T. Novikova, B. Gayet, A. De Martino, P. Validire, Downloaded, multispectral
Mueller polarimetric imaging detecting residual cancer and cancer regression after neoadjuvant treatment for colorectal carcinomas, J. Biomed. Opt. 18 (2013),
046014.
[6] S. Kumar, H. Purwar, R. Ossikovski, A. Vitkin, N. Ghosh, Comparative study of differential matrix and extended polar decomposition formalisms for polarimetric
characterization of complex tissue-like turbid media, J. Biomed. Opt. 17 (2012), 105006.
[7] J. Chung, W. Jung, M.J. Hammer-Wilson, P. Wilder-Smith, Z. Chen, Use of polar decomposition for the diagnosis of oral precancer, Appl. Opt. 46 (2007)
3038–3045.
[8] S.-Y. Lu, R.A. Chipman, Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13 (1996) 1106–1113.
[9] H. He, N. Zeng, E. Du, Y. Guo, D. Li, R. Liao, H. Ma, A possible quantitative Mueller matrix transformation technique for anisotropic scattering media, Photonics
Lasers Med. 2 (2013) 129–137.
[10] I. Ahmad, Review of the emerging role of optical polarimetry in characterization of pathological myocardium, J. Biomed. Opt. 22 (2017), 100901.
[11] I. Ahmad, A. Khaliq, M. Iqbal, S. Khan, Mueller matrix polarimetry for characterization of skin tissue samples: a review, Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 30 (2020),
101708.
[12] I. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, K. Khan, S. Ashraf, S. Ahmad, M. Ikram, Ex vivo characterization of normal and adenocarcinoma colon samples by Mueller matrix
polarimetry, J. Biomed. Opt. 20 (2015) 056012.
[13] I. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, K. Khan, M. Ikram, Polarimetry based partial least square classification of ex vivo healthy and basal cell carcinoma human skin tissues,
Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 14 (2016) 134–141.
[14] Y. Wang, H. He, J. Chang, C. He, S. Liu, M. Li, N. Zeng, J. Wu, H. Ma, Mueller matrix microscope: a quantitative tool to facilitate detections and fibrosis scorings
of liver cirrhosis and cancer tissues, J. Biomed. Opt. 21 (2016), 071112.
[15] T. Liu, T. Sun, H. Honghui, S. Liu, D. Yang, W. Jian, M. Hui, Comparative study of the imaging contrasts of Mueller matrix derived parameters between
transmission and backscattering polarimetry, Biomed. Opt. Express 9 (2018) 4413–4428.
[16] 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 parameters, Biomed. Opt. Express 5 (2014) 4223.
[17] I.A. Vitkin, N. Ghosh, Tissue polarimetry: concepts, challenges, applications, and outlook, J. Biomed. Opt. 16 (2011), 110801.
[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 parameters, Biomed. Opt. Express 5 (2014) 4223–4234.
[19] R. Ossikovski, J. Vizet, Polar decompositions of negative-determinant Mueller matrices featuring nondiagonal depolarizers, Appl. Opt. 56 (2017) 8446–8451.

10
M. Iqbal et al. Optik 224 (2020) 165508

[20] S. Firdous, M. Ikram, M. Faisal, Measurement of the optical properties of breast tissues in vitro using Mueller matrix polarimetry, Int. J. Cancer Res. 1 (2005)
29–35.
[21] R. Kodela, P. Vangala, Polarization properties of thyroid tissue by polar decomposition of Mueller matrix, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. A Sci. 43 (2017) 279–283.
[22] N. Ortega-quijano, F. Fanjul-vélez, J. De Cos-pérez, J.L. Arce-diego, Analysis of the depolarizing properties of normal and adenomatous polyps in colon mucosa
for the early diagnosis of precancerous lesions, Opt. Commun. 284 (2011) 4852–4856.
[23] S. Shrestha, A. Deshpande, T. Farrahi, T. Cambria, T. Quang, J. Majeski, Y. Na, M. Zervakis, G. Livanos, G.C. Giakos, Label-free discrimination of lung cancer
cells through mueller matrix decomposition of diffuse reflectance imaging, Biomed. Signal Process. Control 40 (2018) 505–518.
[24] R. Kodela, P. Vanagala, Polarimetric parameters to categorize normal and malignant thyroid tissue, IETE J. Res. 63 (2017) 893–897.
[25] K. Rajkumar, V. Padmaja, Mueller matrix polar decomposition of breast tissue, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 11 (2016) 1778–1781.
[26] S. Anwar, S. Firdous, Optical diagnosis of dengue virus infected human blood, Opt. Spectrosc. 121 (2016) 322–325.
[27] K. Rajkumar, P. Sunethri, P.V.K. Rao, V. Padmaja, Mueller matrix imaging polarimetry- for tissue imaging, International Conference on Industrial
Instrumentation and Control (2015) 1540–1543.
[28] S.N. Savenkov, E.A. Oberemok, S.A. Mamilov, S.S. Esman, M.M. Asimov, Characteristics of light scattering by normal, J. Appl. Spectrosc. 78 (2011) 96–103.
[29] J.S. Baba, J. Chung, A.H. Delaughter, B.D. Cameron, G.L. Cote, Development and calibration of an automated Mueller matrix polarization imaging system,
J. Biomed. Opt. 7 (2002) 341–349.
[30] A.R. Hill, B.D. Cameron, J.R. Chung, J.S. Baba, G.L. Coté, Development and calibration of an automated Mueller matrix polarization system for skin lesion
differentiation, SPIE Proceedings on Optical Tomography and Spectroscopy of Tissue IV (2001) 449–454.
[31] F. Fanjul-Vélez, N. Ortega-Quijano, L. Buelta, J.L. Arce-Diego, Determination of the pathological state of skin samples by optical polarimetry parameters, SPIE
Proceedings on Photonics, Devices, System IV (2008) 71380I.
[32] F. Fanjul-Vélez, N. Ortega-Quijano, J.L. Arce-Diego, Comparative analysis of tissue structure via Mueller matrix characterization of liquid crystals, SPIE
Proceedings Biophotonics: Photonic Solutions for Better Health Care (2008) 699126.
[33] F. Boulvert, B. Boulbry, G. Le Brun, B. Le Jeune, S. Rivet, J. Cariou, Analysis of the depolarizing properties of irradiated pig skin, J. Opt. A Pure Appl. Opt. 7
(2005) 21–28.
[34] L. Martin, G. Le Brun, B. Le Jeune, Mueller matrix decomposition for biological tissue analysis, Opt. Commun. 293 (2013) 4–9.
[35] J.-R. Chung, J.S. Baba, A.H. DeLaughter, G.L. Coté, Development and use of a novel automated Mueller matrix polarization imaging system for in-vivo imaging
of lesions, SPIE Proceedings Optical Biopsy IV (2002) 111–117.
[36] S.N. Savenkov, E.A. Oberemok, S.A. Mamilov, S.S. Esman, M.M. Asimov, Characteristics of light scattering by normal and modified areas of skin tissue, J. Appl.
Spectrosc. 78 (2011) 87–94.
[37] N. Ghosh, M.F.G. Wood, S. Li, R.D. Weisel, C.W. Brian, R. Li, I.A. Vitkin, Mueller matrix decomposition for polarized light assessment of biological tissues,
J. Biophotonics 2 (2009) 145–156.
[38] N. Ghosh, M.F.G. Wood, I.A. Vitkin, Mueller matrix decomposition for extraction of individual polarization parameters from complex turbid media exhibiting
multiple scattering, optical activity, and linear birefringence, J. Biomed. Opt. 13 (2008), 044036.
[39] N. Ghosh, M.F.G. Wood, I.A. Vitkin, Polarimetry in turbid, birefringent, optically active media: a Monte Carlo study of Mueller matrix decomposition in the
backscattering geometry, J. Appl. Phys. 105 (2009), 102023.
[40] F. Fanjul-Vélez, N. Ortega-Quijano, J.L. Arce-Diego, Polarimetry group theory analysis in biological tissue phantoms by Mueller coherency matrix, Opt.
Commun. 283 (2010) 4525–4530.
[41] N. Ortega-Quijano, F. Fanjul-Velez, J.L. Arce-Diego, Physically meaningful depolarization metric based on the differential Mueller matrix, Opt. Lett. 40 (2015)
3280–3283.
[42] N. Ortega-Quijano, F. Fanjul-Vélez, I. Salas-García, J.L. Arce-Diego, Comparative study of optical activity in chiral biological media by polar decomposition and
differential Mueller matrices analysis, SPIE Proc. Opt. Diagnostics Sens. XI Towar. Point-of-Care Diagnostics; Des. Perform. Valid. Phantoms Used Conjunction
with Opt. Meas. Tissue III (2011) 790612.
[43] S. Firdous, M. Ikram, Mueller matrix imaging polarimetry for the characterization of turbid medium, Ann. Biomed. Res. Educ. 5 (2005) 55–60.
[44] A. Lizana, A. Van Eeckhout, K. Adamczyk, C. Rodríguez, J.C. Escalera, E. Garcia-Caurel, I. Moreno, J. Campos, Polarization gating based on Mueller matrices,
J. Biomed. Opt. 22 (2017), 056004.
[45] S. Manhas, M.K. Swami, P. Buddhiwant, N. Ghosh, P.K. Gupta, K. Singh, Mueller matrix approach for determination of optical rotation in chiral turbid media in
backscattering geometry, Opt. Express 14 (2006) 190–202.
[46] I. Ahmad, A. Gribble, M. Ikram, M. Pop, A. Vitkin, Polarimetric assessment of healthy and radiofrequency ablated porcine myocardial tissue, J. Biophotonics 9
(2015) 750–759.
[47] I. Ahmad, A. Gribble, I. Murtza, M. Ikram, M. Pop, A. Vitkin, Polarization image segmentation of radiofrequency ablated porcine myocardial tissue, PLoS One 12
(2017), e0157173.
[48] S. Alali, K.J. Aitken, A. Schröder, A. Gribble, D.J. Bagli, I.A. Vitkin, Assessment of local structural disorders of the bladder wall in partial bladder outlet
obstruction using polarized light imaging, Biomed. Opt. Express 5 (2014) 621–629.
[49] N. Ghosh, M.F.G. Wood, I.A. Vitkin, Influence of the order of the constituent basis matrices on the Mueller matrix decomposition-derived polarization
parameters in complex turbid media such as biological tissues, Opt. Commun. 283 (2010) 1200–1208.
[50] W. Sheng, W. Li, J. Qi, T. Liu, H. He, Y. Dong, S. Liu, J. Wu, D.S. Elson, H. Ma, Quantitative analysis of 4 × 4 Mueller matrix transformation parameters for
biomedical imaging, Photonics 6 (2019) 1–14.
[51] S. Badieyan, A. Ameri, M.R. Razzaghi, H. Rafii-Tabar, P. Sasanpour, Mueller matrix imaging of prostate bulk tissues; polarization parameters as a discriminating
benchmark, Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 26 (2019) 90–96.
[52] T. Liu, M. Lu, B. Chen, Q. Zhong, J. Li, H. He, H. Mao, H. Ma, Distinguishing structural features between Crohn’s disease and gastrointestinal luminal
tuberculosis using Mueller matrix derived parameters, J. Biophotonics 12 (2019), e201900151.
[53] Y. Dong, J. Qi, H. Honghui, H. Chao, S. Liu, W. Jian, D.S. Elson, H. Ma, Quantitatively characterizing the microstructural features of breast ductal carcinoma
tissues in different progression stages by Mueller matrix microscope, Biomed. Opt. Express 8 (2017) 3643–3655.

11