ArticlePloS one2016
Sensitivity and Specificity of Cardiac Tissue Discrimination Using Fiber-Optics Confocal Microscopy.
Article in PloS one, 2016. 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.
- Dual-wavelength fiber-optic technique to assist needle cricothyroidotomy.Lasers in medical science · 2021Article
- Toward detection of conduction tissue during cardiac surgery: Light at the end of the tunnel?Heart rhythm · 2020Review
- Intraoperative localization of cardiac conduction tissue regions using real-time fibre-optic confocal microscopy: first in human trial.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2020Article
- An Imaging Protocol to Discriminate Specialized Conduction Tissue During Congenital Heart Surgery.Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2019Article
- Intravital endoscopic technology for real-time monitoring of inflammation caused in experimental periodontitis.Journal of immunological methods · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disturbances of the cardiac conduction system constitute a major risk after surgical repair of complex cases of congenital heart disease. Intraoperative identification of the conduction system may reduce the incidence of these disturbances. We previously developed an approach to identify cardiac tissue types using fiber-optics confocal microscopy and extracellular fluorophores. Here, we applied this approach to investigate sensitivity and specificity of human and automated classification in discriminating images of atrial working myocardium and specialized tissue of the conduction system. Two-dimensional image sequences from atrial working myocardium and nodal tissue of isolated perfused rodent hearts were acquired using a fiber-optics confocal microscope (Leica FCM1000). We compared two methods for local application of extracellular fluorophores: topical via pipette and with a dye carrier. Eight blinded examiners evaluated 162 randomly selected images of atrial working myocardium (n = 81) and nodal tissue (n = 81). In addition, we evaluated the images using automated classification. Blinded examiners achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 99.2 ± 0.3% and 98.0 ± 0.7%, respectively, with the dye carrier method of dye application. Sensitivity and specificity was similar for dye application via a pipette (99.2 ± 0.3% and 94.0 ± 2.4%, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity for automated methods of tissue discrimination were similarly high. Human and automated classification achieved high sensitivity and specificity in discriminating atrial working myocardium and nodal tissue. We suggest that our findings facilitate clinical translation of fiber-optics confocal microscopy as an intraoperative imaging modality to reduce the incidence of conduction disturbances during surgical correction of congenital heart disease.
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.