ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Optical Characterization of Biological Tissues Based on Fluorescence, Absorption, and Scattering Properties.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Fluorescent Probes for IDH-Wildtype Glioblastoma, Metastatic Brain Tumors, and PCNSL: A Biomechanical Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Impact of sample handling protocols on soft tissue attenuation coefficient and morphology.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
- Mobile and Wireless Autofluorescence Detection Systems and Their Application for Skin Tissues.Biosensors · 2025Article
- A Low-Cost Optomechatronic Diffuse Optical Mammography System for 3D Image Reconstruction: Proof of Concept.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Post-heating Fluorescence-based Alteration and Adulteration Detection of Extra Virgin Olive Oil.Journal of fluorescence · 2023Article
- Luminescent Gold Nanoclusters for Bioimaging: Increasing the Ligand Complexity.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical diagnostics methods are significantly appealing in biological applications since they are non-destructive, safe, and minimally invasive. Laser-induced fluorescence is a promising optical spectrochemical analytical technique widely employed for tissue classification through molecular analysis of the studied samples after excitation with appropriate short-wavelength laser light. On the other hand, diffuse optics techniques are used for tissue monitoring and differentiation based on their absorption and scattering characteristics in the red to the near-infrared spectra. Therefore, it is strongly foreseen to obtain promising results by combining these techniques. In the present work, tissues under different conditions (hydrated/dry skin and native/boiled adipose fat) were distinguished according to their fluorescence emission, absorption, and scattering properties. The selected tissues' optical absorption and scattering parameters were determined via Kubelka-Munk mathematical model according to the experimental tissue reflectance and transmittance measurements. Such measurements were obtained using an optical configuration of integrating sphere and spectrometer at different laser wavelengths (808, 830, and 980 nm). Moreover, the diffusion equation was solved for the fluence rate at the sample surface using the finite element method. Furthermore, the accuracy of the obtained spectroscopic measurements was evaluated using partial least squares regression statistical analysis with 0.87 and 0.89 R-squared values for skin and adipose fat, respectively.
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.