ArticleNeurophotonics2025
Robust photogrammetric scalp morphology estimation for functional optical neuroimaging.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2025. 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.
- Beam-F3 error analysis and validation of Neurally-F3 equations using realistic head models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Significance: Optical functional neuroimaging relies upon accurate anatomical models to provide optimal data registration and image reconstruction. Aim: We establish and validate a robust photogrammetric algorithm for scalp morphology that utilizes 3-dimensional (3D) imaging with a photogrammetric cap to provide individualized scalp morphology estimation through hair in the absence of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Approach: The scalp morphology estimation uses a flexible, neoprene cap and 3D-printed photogrammetric modules with fiducials. We create a sparse scalp sampling and align the MNI152 atlas to generate the scalp morphology estimation. We used the international 10 to 20 electroencephalogram positions for alignment and calculated the error as the Euclidean distance among a subspace of modified 10 to 5 electroencephalogram points between surface-based methods and participant-specific MRI. Results: The scalp morphology estimation error relative to participant-specific MRI had a mean (std) error of 4.27 (2.15) mm, a gold standard volumetric registration of 3.57 (1.69) mm, a four-point scaled atlas of 11.45 (6.00) mm, an unscaled atlas of 5.35 (1.52) mm, and a scalp estimation without cap of 12.42 (6.45) mm. Notably, the scalp morphology estimation demonstrated lower variance in the spatial distribution of error, indicating robustness to idiosyncratic head shapes. Conclusions: Our scalp morphology estimation algorithm is robust in the presence of hair, provides accurate participant-specific head shapes without requiring MRI, and scales to other cap and fiducial designs, thus highlighting the utility of this tool for a variety of 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.