## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Tissues**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Diattenuation**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(R^{2}\)} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(p\)} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \(D\)**–\(t_{1213}\)** & \(D\)**–\(t_{121314}\)** & \(D\)**–\(t_{121315}\)** & \(D\)**–\(t_{121314}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Forward} & colorectal & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & ITB & 0.90 & 1.00 & \textless{}0.01 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & liver & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & CD & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & bladder & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & breast & 0.98 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & adenoma & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & Total & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Correlation and statistical analysis comparison results between forward measured MMT and MMPD diattenuation parameters for each kind of thin tissue samples. Figure 1: Comparison of forward measured MMT and MMPD diattenuation parameters of thin tissue samples. (**a**) MMPD parameter \(D\) plotted against its counterpart MMT parameter \(t_{1213}\) for correlation analysis with all 7 kinds of thin tissue samples. (**b**) Statistical analysis bar chart of MMPD parameter \(D\) and MMT parameter \(t_{1213}\) for each kind of thin tissue samples. (**c**) MMPD parameter \(D\) plotted against its counterpart modified MMT parameter \(t_{121314}\) for correlation analysis with all 7 kinds of thin tissue samples. (**d**) Statistical analysis bar chart of MMPD parameter \(D\) and modified MMT parameter \(t_{121314}\) for each kind of thin tissue samples. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Tissues**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Diattenuation**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{R^{2}}\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{p}\)} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \(\mathbf{D{-}t_{1213}}\) & \(\mathbf{D{-}t_{121314}}\) & \(\mathbf{D{-}t_{1213}}\) & \(\mathbf{D{-}t_{121314}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Backward} & breast & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\  & rat-skin & 0.94 & 1.00 & \textless{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \cline{1-1}  & porcine-intestine & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textless{}0.01 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \cline{1-1}  & porcine-stomach & 0.92 & 1.00 & \textless{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \cline{1-1}  & porcine-liver & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textgreater{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Total & 0.99 & 1.00 & \textless{}0.05 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Correlation and statistical analysis comparison results between backward measured MMT and MMPD diattenuation parameters for each kind of bulk tissue samples. We can observe from Table 3 that, for the backscattering measurement results, the correlation coefficient values of parameters (\(D\), \(t_{121314}\)) for each kind of bulk samples also have higher values of 1 compared with that of parameters (\(D\), \(t_{1213}\)), meaning that the modified MMT diattenuation parameter \(t_{121314}\) also has a good accordance with the MMPD parameter \(D\) in backscattering measurement. Meanwhile, for the statistical analysis of each kind of sample, it can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 2b that the rat-skin, porcine-intestine, porcine-stomach and liver tissue samples show statistically significant differences with \(p<0.05\) between the parameters \(D\) and \(t_{1213}\). However, the \(p\)-values of all kinds of tissue samples are larger than 0.05 for parameters (\(D\), \(t_{121314}\)) shown in Table 3 and Figure 2d, which also confirms that the modified MMT parameter \(t_{121314}\) can be used to accurately characterize the diattenuation property of the bulk tissue samples measured by backscattering polarimetry.