ArticleLasers in medical science2020
Probing deep tissues with laser-induced thermotherapy using near-infrared light.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Finite Element Implementation of Delta-P1 Model for Simulation of Photothermal Cancer Therapy in Heterogeneous Tissues.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Thermal field and tissue damage analysis of moving laser in cancer thermal therapy.Lasers in medical science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Optically tunable gold nanoparticles have been widely used in research with near-infrared light as a means to enhance laser-induced thermal therapy since it capitalizes on nanoparticles' plasmonic heating properties. There have been several studies published on numerical models replicating this therapy in such conditions. However, there are several limitations on some of the models which can render the model unfaithful to therapy simulations. In this paper, two techniques of simulating laser-induced thermal therapy with a high-absorbing localized region of interest inside a phantom are compared. To validate these models, we conducted an experiment of an agar-agar phantom with an inclusion reproducing it with both models. The phantom was optically characterized by absorption and total attenuation. The first model is based on the macroperspective solution of the radiative transfer equation given by the diffusion equation, which is then coupled with the Pennes bioheat equation to obtain the temperature. The second is a Monte Carlo model that considers a stochastic solution of the same equation and is also considered as input to the Pennes bioheat transfer equation which is then computed. The Monte Carlo is in good agreement with the experimental data having an average percentage difference of 4.5% and a correlation factor of 0.98, while the diffusion method comparison with experimental data is 61% and 0.95 respectively. The optical characterization of the phantom and its inclusion were also validated indirectly since the Monte Carlo, which used those parameters, was also validated. While knowing the temperature in all points inside a body during photothermal therapy is important, one has to be mindful of the model which fits the conditions and properties. There are several reasons to justify the discrepancy of the diffusion method: low-scattering conditions, absorption, and reduced scattering are comparable. The error bars that are normally associated when characterizing an optical phantom can justify also a part of that uncertainty. For low-size tumors in depth, one may have to increase the light dosage in photothermal therapies to have a more effective treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31098938What 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.