Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35701869›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2022

Multi-laboratory performance assessment of diffuse optics instruments: the BitMap exercise.

Pranav Lanka, Lin Yang, David Orive-Miguel, Joshua Deepak Veesa, Susanna Tagliabue, Aleh Sudakou, Saeed Samaei, Mario Forcione, Zuzana Kovacsova, Anurag Behera and 43 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

53 authors.

Pranav LankaPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Lin YangPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Berlin, Germany.
David Orive-MiguelUniversité Grenoble Alpes, CEA, LETI, DTBS, Grenoble, France.
Joshua Deepak VeesaUniversity of Birmingham, School of Computer Science, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Susanna TagliabueThe Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO), Castelldefels, Spain.
Aleh SudakouNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Saeed SamaeiNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Mario ForcioneUniversity Hospitals Birmingham, National Institute for Health Research Surgical Reconstruction and, United Kingdom.
Zuzana KovacsovaUCL, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, London, United Kingdom.
Anurag BeheraPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Thomas GladytzPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Berlin, Germany.
Dirk GrosenickPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Berlin, Germany.
Lionel HervéUniversité Grenoble Alpes, CEA, LETI, DTBS, Grenoble, France.
Turgut DurduranThe Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO), Castelldefels, Spain.
Karolina BejmNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Magdalena MorawiecNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Michał KacprzakNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Piotr SawoszNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna GeregaNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Adam LiebertNalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Warsaw, Poland.
Antonio BelliUniversity Hospitals Birmingham, National Institute for Health Research Surgical Reconstruction and, United Kingdom.
Ilias TachtsidisUCL, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, London, United Kingdom.
Frédéric LangeUCL, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, London, United Kingdom.
Gemma BaleUniversity of Cambridge, Department of Engineering and Department of Physics, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Luca BaratelliUniversity of Strasbourg, ICube Laboratory, Strasbourg, France.
Sylvain GiouxUniversity of Strasbourg, ICube Laboratory, Strasbourg, France.
Kalyanov AlexanderUniversity Hospital Zurich, Biomedical Optics Research Laboratory, Department of Neonatology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martin WolfUniversity Hospital Zurich, Biomedical Optics Research Laboratory, Department of Neonatology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sanathana Konugolu Venkata SekarIPIC, Tyndall National Institute, Cork, Ireland.
Marta ZanolettiPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Ileana PirovanoPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Michele LacerenzaPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Lina QiuSouth China Normal University, School of Software, Guangzhou, China.
Edoardo FerocinoPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Giulia MaffeisPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Caterina AmendolaPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Lorenzo ColomboPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Lorenzo FrabasilePolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Pietro LevoniPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Mauro ButtafavaIstituto di Fotonica e Nanotecnologie, Milano, Italy.
Marco RennaIstituto di Fotonica e Nanotecnologie, Milano, Italy.
Laura Di SienoPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Rebecca RePolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Andrea FarinaPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Milano, Italy.
Lorenzo SpinelliPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Milano, Italy.
Alberto Dalla MoraPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Davide ContiniPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Paola TaroniPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Alberto TosiIstituto di Fotonica e Nanotecnologie, Milano, Italy.
Alessandro TorricelliPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.
Hamid DehghaniUniversity of Birmingham, School of Computer Science, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Heidrun WabnitzPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Berlin, Germany.
Antonio PifferiPolitecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica, Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

significanceMulti-laboratory initiatives are essential in performance assessment and standardization-crucial for bringing biophotonics to mature clinical use-to establish protocols and develop reference tissue phantoms that all will allow universal instrument comparison.

aimThe largest multi-laboratory comparison of performance assessment in near-infrared diffuse optics is presented, involving 28 instruments and 12 institutions on a total of eight experiments based on three consolidated protocols (BIP, MEDPHOT, and NEUROPT) as implemented on three kits of tissue phantoms. A total of 20 synthetic indicators were extracted from the dataset, some of them defined here anew. APPROACH: The exercise stems from the Innovative Training Network BitMap funded by the European Commission and expanded to include other European laboratories. A large variety of diffuse optics instruments were considered, based on different approaches (time domain/frequency domain/continuous wave), at various stages of maturity and designed for different applications (e.g., oximetry, spectroscopy, and imaging).

resultsThis study highlights a substantial difference in hardware performances (e.g., nine decades in responsivity, four decades in dark count rate, and one decade in temporal resolution). Agreement in the estimates of homogeneous optical properties was within 12% of the median value for half of the systems, with a temporal stability of <5  %   over 1 h, and day-to-day reproducibility of <3  %  . Other tests encompassed linearity, crosstalk, uncertainty, and detection of optical inhomogeneities.

conclusionsThis extensive multi-laboratory exercise provides a detailed assessment of near-infrared Diffuse optical instruments and can be used for reference grading. The dataset-available soon in an open data repository-can be evaluated in multiple ways, for instance, to compare different analysis tools or study the impact of hardware implementations.

Indexed as

LaboratoriesOptics and PhotonicsPhantoms, ImagingReproducibility of ResultsSpectrum Analysisabsorptiondiffuse opticsnear-infrared spectroscopyphantomscattering

Identifiers

PMID35701869
PMCPMC9199954

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.