ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2025
Phasor and neural network approaches for rapid fluorophore fraction analysis in temporal-spectral multiplexed data.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: The spatial and temporal distribution of fluorophore fractions in biological and environmental systems contains valuable information about the interactions and dynamics of these systems. To access this information, fluorophore fractions are commonly determined by means of their fluorescence emission spectrum (ES) or lifetime (LT). Combining both dimensions in temporal-spectral multiplexed data enables more accurate fraction determination while requiring advanced and fast analysis methods to handle the increased data complexity and size. Aim: We introduce two methods, a phasor and a feedforward neural network (FNN) analysis, to extract fluorophore fractions from temporal-spectral data. These methods aim to handle the increased data complexity and size of temporal-spectral multiplexed data and therefore enable access to a more accurate and fast fraction determination. Approach: The phasor analysis determines the fraction in each dimension and combines them, whereas the FNN is trained using artificially mixed data. Both methods are compared with the reference method using linear combination-based curve fitting (FIT). The methods are tested in a two-component scenario of exogenous fluorophores with different ES and LT and in a three-component scenario of endogenous fluorophores with similar ES and different LT. Results: In this case, the phasor analysis showed the lowest absolute errors in the fraction determination (1.4% two-component, 4.7% three-component), outperforming the FNN (6.3%) and FIT (8.7%) analysis, which are both not able to recognize all fluorophores in the three-component scenario. The computational effort was reduced by roughly a factor of 6 (Phasor/FNN) compared with FIT. Conclusions: Both methods demonstrate substantial advantages over common fitting, offering a faster and more accurate determination of fluorophore fractions. These advancements make temporal-spectral multiplexed data more accessible and practical, particularly for high-speed 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.