ArticleBiomedical optics express2015
Evaluating real-time image reconstruction in diffuse optical tomography using physiologically realistic test data.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone-based photogrammetry provides improved localization and registration of scalp-mounted neuroimaging sensors.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Deconvolution of hemodynamic responses along the cortical surface using personalized functional near infrared spectroscopy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effect of Shot Noise on Simultaneous Sensing in Frequency Division Multiplexed Diffuse Optical Tomographic Imaging Process.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Image reconstruction of oxidized cerebral cytochrome C oxidase changes from broadband near-infrared spectroscopy data.Neurophotonics · 2017Article
- Long-term continuous monitoring of the preterm brain with diffuse optical tomography and electroencephalography: a technical note on cap manufacturing.Neurophotonics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In diffuse optical tomography (DOT), real-time image reconstruction of oxy- and deoxy-haemoglobin changes occurring in the brain could give valuable information in clinical care settings. Although non-linear reconstruction techniques could provide more accurate results, their computational burden makes them unsuitable for real-time applications. Linear techniques can be employed under the assumption that the expected change in absorption is small. Several approaches exist, differing primarily in their handling of regularization and the noise statistics. In real experiments, it is impossible to compute the true noise statistics, because of the presence of physiological oscillations in the measured data. This is even more critical in real-time applications, where no off-line filtering and averaging can be performed to reduce the noise level. Therefore, many studies substitute the noise covariance matrix with the identity matrix. In this paper, we examined two questions: does using the noise model with realistic, imperfect data yield an improvement in image quality compared to using the identity matrix; and what is the difference in quality between online and offline reconstructions. Bespoke test data were created using a novel process through which simulated changes in absorption were added to real resting-state DOT data. A realistic multi-layer head model was used as the geometry for the reconstruction. Results validated our assumptions, highlighting the validity of computing the noise statistics from the measured data for online image reconstruction, which was performed at 2 Hz. Our results can be directly extended to a real application where real-time imaging is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.