ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2021
Spectral characterization of liquid hemoglobin phantoms with varying oxygenation states.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xeno-learning: knowledge transfer across species in deep learning-based spectral image analysis.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Optical phantoms for the characterization and validation of imaging and spectroscopy: a review.Biophotonics discovery · 2026Review
- Solid breast tumors phantom emulating oxy and deoxyhemoglobin concentrations for near infrared imaging.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Development of a glass-based imaging phantom to model the optical properties of human tissue.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Absorption and reduced scattering coefficients in epidermis and dermis from a Swedish cohort study.Journal of biomedical optics · 2023Article
- Development of a platform for broadband, spectra-fitted, tissue optical phantoms.Journal of biomedical optics · 2023Article
- Influence of optical aberrations on depth-specific spatial frequency domain techniques.Journal of biomedical optics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
significanceFor optical methods to accurately assess hemoglobin oxygen saturation in vivo, an independently verifiable tissue-like standard is required for validation. For this purpose, we propose three hemoglobin preparations and evaluate methods to characterize them.
aimTo spectrally characterize three different hemoglobin preparations using multiple spectroscopic methods and to compare their absorption spectra to commonly used reference spectra. APPROACH: Absorption spectra of three hemoglobin preparations in solution were characterized using spectroscopic collimated transmission: whole blood, lysed blood, and ferrous-stabilized hemoglobin. Tissue-mimicking phantoms composed of Intralipid, and the hemoglobin solutions were characterized using spatial frequency-domain spectroscopy (SFDS) and enhanced perfusion and oxygen saturation (EPOS) techniques while using yeast to deplete oxygen.
resultsAll hemoglobin preparations exhibited similar absorption spectra when accounting for methemoglobin and scattering in their oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin forms, respectively. However, systematic differences were observed in the fitting depending on the reference spectra used. For the tissue-mimicking phantoms, SFDS measurements at the surface of the phantom were affected by oxygen diffusion at the interface with air, associated with higher values than for the EPOS system.
conclusionsWe show the validity of different blood phantoms and what considerations need to be addressed in each case to utilize them equivalently.
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.