ArticlePhysiological measurement2017
Comparative study of separation between ex vivo prostatic malignant and benign tissue using electrical impedance spectroscopy and electrical impedance tomography.
Article in Physiological measurement, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The clinical application of electrical impedance technology in the detection of malignant neoplasms: a systematic review.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Ex-Vivo Prostate Evaluation of Fused-Data TREIT Using Only Biopsy-Probe Electrodes.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- In Vivo Classification of Oral Lesions Using Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- Comparison of Complex Open Domain Electrical Impedance Tomography Methods.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025Article
- A Clinically Feasible Electrode Array for 3D Intraoperative Electrical Impedance Tomography-Based Surgical Margin Assessment in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2024Article
- Rapid patient-specific FEM meshes from 3D smart-phone based scans.Physiological measurement · 2024Article
- Reduction of Biosensor False Responses and Time Delay Using Dynamic Response and Theory-Guided Machine Learning.ACS sensors · 2023Article
- Classification between Normal and Cancerous Human Urothelial Cells by Using Micro-Dimensional Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Combined with Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Tissue Recognition Based on Electrical Impedance Classified by Support Vector Machine in Spinal Operation Area.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Label-Free Physical Techniques and Methodologies for Proteins Detection in Microfluidic Biosensor Structures.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Review
- Machine Learning Enhances the Performance of Bioreceptor-Free Biosensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A bioimpedance-based monitor for real-time detection and identification of secondary brain injury.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Phantom Studies of Fused-Data TREIT Using Only Biopsy-Probe Electrodes.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCurrently no efficient and reliable technique exists to routinely assess surgical margins during a radical prostatectomy. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been reported as a potential technique to provide surgeons with real-time intraoperative margin assessment. In addition to providing a quantified measure of margin status, a co-registered electrical impedance tomography (EIT) image presented on a surgeon's workstation could add value to the margin assessment process. APPROACH: To investigate this, we conducted a comparative study between EIS and EIT to evaluate the potential these technologies might have for margin assessment. EIS and EIT data was acquired from ex vivo human prostates using a multi-electrode endoscopic impedance acquisition probe. MAIN
resultsEIS and EIT show good predictive performance with a 0.76 and 0.80 area-under-curve (AUC), respectively, when considering discrete frequencies only. A machine learning (ML) algorithm is implemented to combine features, which improves the AUCs of EIS and EIT to 0.84 and 0.85, respectively. Single-step EIT takes significantly less time to reconstruct than multi-step EIT, yet provides similarly accurate classification results, making the single-step approach a potential candidate for real-time margin assessment. While the ML-based approach clearly exhibits benefits as compared to the single feature assessment, the decision to use EIS versus EIT is unclear since each approach performs better for different subsets of tissue classifications. SIGNIFICANCE: The results presented in this paper corroborate our previous studies and present the strongest evidence yet that an intraoperative-capable impedance probe can be used to distinguish benign from malignant prostate tissues. An in vivo study with a large cohort will be necessary to definitively determine the preferred approach and to show the clinical effectiveness of using this technology for margin assessment.
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.