ArticleFrontiers in physiology2024
Evaluation of cerebral perfusion heterogeneity by the electrical impedance tomography.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of global inhomogeneity index (GI) and left-right asymmetry index (AI) based on electrical impedance tomography (EIT) to be used in assessing cerebral perfusion heterogeneity. The diagnostic value of these two indices in identifying abnormalities in the degree of cerebral perfusion heterogeneity was also explored. Methods: In this study, Transcranial Doppler (TCD) was used as a control, and unilateral carotid artery was compressed to change the degree of heterogeneity of cerebral perfusion in 15 healthy volunteers. The control group consisted of an additional 15 volunteers without any intervention. EIT perfusion images were obtained by calculating the impedance difference between at the beginning and end of cerebral vasodilation. Subsequently, GI and AI were calculated based on the pixel values of intracranial regions. Results: The GI and AI values in the non-carotid artery compression (NCAC) group were significantly lower than those in the unilateral carotid artery compression (UCAC) group (P < 0.001), whereas there was no significant difference between the left carotid artery compression (LCAC) and right carotid artery compression (RCAC) groups. ROC analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC), specificity and sensitivity of GI in distinguishing between NCAC and UCAC were 0.94, 0.90 and 0.87, respectively. The AUC, specificity and sensitivity of AI in distinguishing between NCAC and UCAC were 0.86, 0.87 and 0.73, respectively. Conclusion: The results demonstrated that the GI and AI effectively quantify the distribution of intracranial perfusion, demonstrating excellent validity and interindividual comparability, and the ability to detect abnormal cerebral perfusion heterogeneity.
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.