ArticleAnnals of 3D printed medicine2024
Utility of a Low-Cost 3-D Printed Microscope for Evaluating Esophageal Biopsies.
Article in Annals of 3D printed medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 3D-printed optical microscope for low-cost histological imaging.Journal of microscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In this manuscript we assessed the utility of a low-cost 3D printed microscope to evaluate esophageal biopsies. We conducted a comparative analysis between the traditional microscope and our 3-D printed microscope, utilizing a set of esophageal biopsy samples obtained from patients undergoing screening endoscopy. Two pathologists independently examined 30 esophageal biopsies by light microscopy and digital images obtained using a low-cost 3D printed microscope (Observer 1 and 2). The glass slide consensus diagnosis was compared to the findings of 2 additional pathologist who independently just reviewed the digital images (Observer 3 and 4). The intra-observer agreement was substantial to almost perfect for observer 1 (k:0.64) and 2 (k:0.84). All four observers had 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value, whereas specificity ranged from 59% to 100% and positive predictive value ranged from 21% to 100%. The PPV and specificity were lower for the two Observers (3 and 4) who just examined the digital images. Overall, our results suggest that telepathology may be used with high sensitivity and specificity, utilizing the pictures produced by our 3D-printed microscope.
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.