Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23579930›Full record

ArticleJournal of fluorescence2013

Comparison of in vivo optical systems for bioluminescence and fluorescence imaging.

Steven K Cool, Koen Breyne, Evelyne Meyer, Stefaan C De Smedt, Niek N Sanders

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of fluorescence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Two-color diffuseJournal of biomedical optics · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. QuantitativeNeurophotonics · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Steven K CoolDepartment of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Koen Breyne
Evelyne Meyer
Stefaan C De Smedt
Niek N Sanders

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vivo optical imaging has become a popular tool in animal laboratories. Currently, many in vivo optical imaging systems are available on the market, which often makes it difficult for research groups to decide which system fits their needs best. In this work we compared different commercially available systems, which can measure both bioluminescent and fluorescent light. The systems were tested for their bioluminescent and fluorescent sensitivity both in vitro and in vivo. The IVIS Lumina II was found to be most sensitive for bioluminescence imaging, with the Photon Imager a close second. Contrary, the Kodak system was, in vitro, the most sensitive system for fluorescence imaging. In vivo, the fluorescence sensitivity of the systems was similar. Finally, we examined the added value of spectral unmixing algorithms for in vivo optical imaging and demonstrated that spectral unmixing resulted in at least a doubling of the in vivo sensitivity. Additionally, spectral unmixing also enabled separate imaging of dyes with overlapping spectra which were, without spectral unmixing, not distinguishable.

Indexed as

LuminescenceAlgorithmsAnimalsBody TemperatureColoring AgentsEscherichia coliFemaleLiposomesMiceMice, Inbred StrainsMice, NudeOptical ImagingColoring AgentsLiposomes

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.