ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Relevance of light conditions for clinical
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical Raman spectroscopy is a promising optical technology for intraoperative brain tumor delineation and diagnosis. As it exploits weak signals, illumination of the operating room (OR) and OR devices might impact the acquired spectra. The aim of this study was to investigate which optical artifacts can be tolerated during the intraoperative analysis of brain tumors Methods: Tissue samples of rat brain and human brain tumors were investigated in an experimental OR, and background signals and Raman spectroscopic datasets were acquired using a fiber-based system. The measurements were performed under various lighting conditions and OR equipment. Results: Ceiling light intensity increased the background, which could be prevented by manual coverage. Hence, the signal-to-noise-ratio of Raman spectra was not altered by ceiling lights. The intensity of the raw spectra of brain tissue and glioma was determined mainly by tissue autofluorescence and not by OR illumination, but it substantially affected the raw spectra of meningioma having low autofluorescence. Operating (OP) lights lead to saturation of the Raman camera. The exoscope, displays, and optical neuronavigation systems produced spectrally structured artifacts. Correct background subtraction was sufficient for artifact correction and obtaining valid Raman spectra. Conclusions: For clinical Raman spectroscopy, it is of utmost importance to be aware of optical disturbances. Intense illumination needs to be avoided but (spectrally structured) disturbances can be corrected by data preprocessing. Rather than external illumination, strong tissue autofluorescence might lead to impaired Raman spectral quality, making tumor tissue recognition difficult.
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.