Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35197802›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2022

Robust imaging using electrical impedance tomography: review of current tools.

Benoit Brazey, Yassine Haddab, Nabil Zemiti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Seeing Through Muddy Water: Laser-Induced Graphene for Portable Tomography Imaging.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Benoit BrazeyLIRMM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5690-3530
Yassine HaddabLIRMM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Nabil ZemitiLIRMM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a medical imaging technique with many advantages and great potential for development in the coming years. Currently, some limitations of EIT are related to the ill-posed nature of the problem. These limitations are translated on a practical level by a lack of genericity of the developed tools. In this paper, the main robust data acquisition and processing tools for EIT proposed in the scientific literature are presented. Their relevance and potential to improve the robustness of EIT are analysed, in order to conclude on the feasibility of a robust EIT tool capable of providing resistivity or difference of resistivity mapping in a wide range of applications. In particular, it is shown that certain measurement acquisition tools and algorithms, such as faulty electrode detection algorithm or particular electrode designs, can ensure the quality of the acquisition in many circumstances. Many algorithms, aiming at processing acquired data, are also described and allow to overcome certain difficulties such as an error in the knowledge of the position of the boundaries or the poor conditioning of the inverse problem. They have a strong potential to faithfully reconstruct a quality image in the presence of disturbances such as noise or boundary modelling error.

Indexed as

electrical impedance tomographyprecisionreviewrobustness

Identifiers

PMID35197802
PMCPMC8808710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.