ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
In Vitro Evaluation of Confounders in Brain Optical Monitoring: A Review.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Development and optical characterization of a multilayered head phantom for optical brain monitoring.Journal of biomedical optics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical brain monitoring techniques, including near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), diffuse correlation spectroscopy (DCS), and photoplethysmography (PPG) have gained attention for their non-invasive, affordable, and portable nature. These methods offer real-time insights into cerebral parameters like cerebral blood flow (CBF), intracranial pressure (ICP), and oxygenation. However, confounding factors like extracerebral layers, skin pigmentation, skull thickness, and brain-related pathologies may affect measurement accuracy. This review examines the potential impact of confounders, focusing on in vitro studies that use phantoms to simulate human head properties under controlled conditions. A systematic search identified six studies on extracerebral layers, two on skin pigmentation, two on skull thickness, and four on brain pathologies. While variation in phantom designs and optical devices limits comparability, findings suggest that the extracerebral layer and skull thickness influence measurement accuracy, and skin pigmentation introduces bias. Pathologies like oedema and haematomas affect the optical signal, though their influence on parameter estimation remains inconclusive. This review highlights limitations in current research and identifies areas for future investigation, including the need for improved brain phantoms capable of simulating pulsatile signals to assess the impact of confounders on PPG systems, given the growing interest in PPG-based cerebral monitoring. Addressing these challenges will improve the reliability of optical monitoring technologies.
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.