ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2025
Toward fluorescence digital twins: multi-parameter experimental validation of fluorescence Monte Carlo simulations using solid phantoms.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indocyanine green excitation-emission matrix characterization: excitation-dependent emission shifts and application-specific spectra.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Quantifying the sensitivity limit of ICG imaging in the presence of tissue autofluorescence.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Optical phantoms for the characterization and validation of imaging and spectroscopy: a review.Biophotonics discovery · 2026Review
- Evaluation of analytical models to estimate depth of fluorescence objects in biological media.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Indocyanine green excitation-emission matrix characterization: excitation-dependent emission shifts and application-specific spectra.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Significance: As fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) gains clinical adoption, robust and experimentally validated computational models for tissue fluorescence are increasingly essential. Although there have been several developments in modeling fluorescence with Monte Carlo simulations, the scope of the experimental validation has been limited in the parameters tested and phantoms used. Aim: We aim to present and experimentally validate a graphics processing unit (GPU)-accelerated, voxel-based Monte Carlo fluorescence framework capable of modeling varying fluorophore concentrations, optical properties, and complex three-dimensional (3D) geometries. Approach: A two-step approach (MCX-ExEm) based on Monte Carlo eXtreme was developed for simulating fluorescence. Both commercial reference targets and custom 3D-printed phantoms with well-characterized optical properties were imaged for varying parameters-including absorption, scattering, fluorophore concentrations, and geometries-and compared against simulations. Results: Strong agreement is observed between simulated and experimental fluorescence across all tested parameters. MCX-ExEm accurately captures nonlinear quenching at high fluorophore concentrations, variations driven by scattering and absorption, intensity scaling with volume, and depth-dependent attenuation and resolution. Minor deviations occur primarily under low-scattering or low-absorption regimes, where optical characterization presents greater uncertainties. Conclusions: By integrating experimentally validated simulations with a broad range of solid phantoms, this framework establishes a foundation for developing fluorescence digital twins, enabling faster and more systemic testing of fluorescence imaging systems. These findings can help accelerate the design and optimization of FGS and other fluorescence-based biomedical applications.
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.