ArticleNeurophotonics2026
Comparative validation of speckle contrast optical spectroscopy against diffuse correlation spectroscopy for monitoring human cerebral blood flow.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global reset-speckle contrast optical spectroscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Comparative validation of speckle contrast optical spectroscopy against diffuse correlation spectroscopy for monitoring human cerebral blood flow.Neurophotonics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Significance: Within diffuse optics, speckle contrast optical spectroscopy (SCOS) has emerged as a promising alternative to the state-of-the-art technique of diffuse correlation spectroscopy (DCS) for continuous, noninvasive bedside monitoring of cerebral blood flow (CBF). Although the two methods theoretically yield equivalent relative indices of CBF (rCBFi), in practice, SCOS-based measurements require experimental calibration to obtain unbiased rCBFi values. To date, there are limited validation studies comparing SCOS and DCS in human subjects, particularly at long source-detector separations (SDS) relevant to adult brain monitoring. Aim: We aim to compare rCBFi from SCOS and DCS during concurrent, colocalized measurements on tissue-mimicking phantoms and humans at a large SDS of 3 cm. Approach: We conducted concurrent SCOS and DCS measurements on temperature-ramped, two-layer, and flow phantoms, respectively. We also conducted concurrent CBF measurements on 10 healthy volunteers undergoing various physiological challenges (breath-holding, hyperventilation, pressure modulation, and squatting) designed to elicit measurable changes in blood flow. SCOS and DCS operated from a shared pulsed laser source, which enabled pulsation-resolved human CBF measurements at 3 cm SDS (DCS necessitated the use of cardiac-gated averaging). Results: We observed strong agreement ( Conclusions: The results demonstrate the equivalence of properly calibrated SCOS and DCS rCBFi measurements at long SDS in adults, establishing SCOS as a viable alternative to DCS for monitoring CBF. Further validation across larger cohorts and clinical populations is warranted.
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.