Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39318966›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2024

Spectral analysis comparison of pushbroom and snapshot hyperspectral cameras for

Alberto Martín-Pérez, Alejandro Martinez de Ternero, Alfonso Lagares, Eduardo Juarez, César Sanz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Alberto Martín-PérezUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid, Research Center on Software Technologies and Multimedia Systems, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4715-6814
Alejandro Martinez de TerneroUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid, Research Center on Software Technologies and Multimedia Systems, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2668-2903
Alfonso LagaresHospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Neurosurgery Department, Madrid, Spain.
Eduardo JuarezUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid, Research Center on Software Technologies and Multimedia Systems, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6096-1511
César SanzUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid, Research Center on Software Technologies and Multimedia Systems, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significance: Hyperspectral imaging sensors have rapidly advanced, aiding in tumor diagnostics for Aim: Our research compares linescan and snapshot hyperspectral cameras for Approach: We compared a linescan pushbroom camera and a snapshot camera using images from 10 patients with various pathologies. Objective comparisons were made using unnormalized and normalized data for healthy and pathological tissues. We utilized the interquartile range (IQR) for the spectral angle mapping (SAM), the goodness-of-fit coefficient (GFC), and the root mean square error (RMSE) within the 659.95 to 951.42 nm range. In addition, we assessed the ability of both cameras to capture tissue chromophores by analyzing absorbance from reflectance information. Results: The SAM metric indicates reduced dispersion and high similarity between cameras for pathological samples, with a 9.68% IQR for normalized data compared with 2.38% for unnormalized data. This pattern is consistent across GFC and RMSE metrics, regardless of tissue type. Moreover, both cameras could identify absorption peaks of certain chromophores. For instance, using the absorbance measurements of the linescan camera, we obtained SAM values below 0.235 for four peaks, regardless of the tissue and type of data under inspection. These peaks are one for cytochrome b in its oxidized form at Conclusion: The spectral signatures of the cameras show more similarity with unnormalized data, likely due to snapshot sensor noise, resulting in noisier signatures post-normalization. Comparisons in this study suggest that snapshot cameras might be viable alternatives to linescan cameras for real-time brain tissue identification.

Indexed as

BrainBrain NeoplasmsHyperspectral ImagingEquipment DesignHumansImage Processing, Computer-Assistedbrain cancerhuman brainhyperspectral imaginghyperspectral snapshot camerain vivo brain tumorspectral camera comparison

Identifiers

PMID39318966
PMCPMC11420787

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.