ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2022
Characterizing factors influencing calibration and optical property determination in quantitative reflectance spectroscopy to improve standardization.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
significanceThe combination of reflectance and fluorescence spectroscopy allows the determination of tissue optical properties and the calculation of the intrinsic fluorescence in vivo. These parameters can discriminate between tissues and may allow the discrimination of malignant from benign tissue. While this approach has significant clinical potential, the lack of standardization and quality assessment prevents the upscaling of research.
aimInvestigate which factors influence device calibration and tissue optical property determination. Improve system quality assessment and allow upscaling of the clinical research using multidiameter single fiber reflectance/singe fiber fluorescence spectroscopy. APPROACH: Two studies, one phantom based on uniform calibrations and skin measurements and a clinical study including clinical calibrations. The first validates the effect of factors under identical conditions and the effect of calibration quality on the optical property determination of skin. The second shows the effect of different system configurations and the performance of the system and probe over an extended period.
resultsPhantom calibrations showed stability over a period of 20 weeks except for a 16-week-old intralipid phantom which showed a significant difference (at least p = 0.0032) for all five probes evaluated. For clinical calibrations, only the fiber tree had a significant influence (probe 4: p < 0.000001 and probe 5: p = 0.00038) on the calibration quality. Interestingly, no degradation of probe performance was detected over a period of 21 months despite the exposure to stress during clinical measurements. Calibration quality affected μs' and the power law scattering exponent, but the degree of the influence was different per fiber.
conclusionsIntralipid phantom quality and fiber tree performance are the main factors influencing the calibration quality. Probe and user performance did not show any effect, which makes the upscaling of research to multicenter trials easier. A high-quality assessment procedure should be implemented to track changes during clinical trials.
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.