Alberto Martín-Pérez, Alejandro Martinez de Ternero, Alfonso Lagares, Eduardo Juarez, César Sanz
{"title":"Spectral analysis comparison of pushbroom and snapshot hyperspectral cameras for <i>in vivo</i> brain tissues and chromophore identification.","authors":"Alberto Martín-Pérez, Alejandro Martinez de Ternero, Alfonso Lagares, Eduardo Juarez, César Sanz","doi":"10.1117/1.JBO.29.9.093510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>Hyperspectral imaging sensors have rapidly advanced, aiding in tumor diagnostics for <i>in vivo</i> brain tumors. Linescan cameras effectively distinguish between pathological and healthy tissue, whereas snapshot cameras offer a potential alternative to reduce acquisition time.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Our research compares linescan and snapshot hyperspectral cameras for <i>in vivo</i> brain tissues and chromophore identification.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>We compared a linescan pushbroom camera and a snapshot camera using images from 10 patients with various pathologies. Objective comparisons were made using unnormalized and normalized data for healthy and pathological tissues. We utilized the interquartile range (IQR) for the spectral angle mapping (SAM), the goodness-of-fit coefficient (GFC), and the root mean square error (RMSE) within the 659.95 to 951.42 nm range. In addition, we assessed the ability of both cameras to capture tissue chromophores by analyzing absorbance from reflectance information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SAM metric indicates reduced dispersion and high similarity between cameras for pathological samples, with a 9.68% IQR for normalized data compared with 2.38% for unnormalized data. This pattern is consistent across GFC and RMSE metrics, regardless of tissue type. Moreover, both cameras could identify absorption peaks of certain chromophores. For instance, using the absorbance measurements of the linescan camera, we obtained SAM values below 0.235 for four peaks, regardless of the tissue and type of data under inspection. These peaks are one for cytochrome b in its oxidized form at <math><mrow><mi>λ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>422</mn> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>nm</mi></mrow> </math> , two for <math> <mrow> <msub><mrow><mi>HbO</mi></mrow> <mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow> </msub> </mrow> </math> at <math><mrow><mi>λ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>542</mn> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>nm</mi></mrow> </math> and <math><mrow><mi>λ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>576</mn> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>nm</mi></mrow> </math> , and one for water at <math><mrow><mi>λ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>976</mn> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>nm</mi></mrow> </math> .</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The spectral signatures of the cameras show more similarity with unnormalized data, likely due to snapshot sensor noise, resulting in noisier signatures post-normalization. Comparisons in this study suggest that snapshot cameras might be viable alternatives to linescan cameras for real-time brain tissue identification.</p>","PeriodicalId":15264,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Optics","volume":"29 9","pages":"093510"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11420787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Optics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.29.9.093510","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Significance: Hyperspectral imaging sensors have rapidly advanced, aiding in tumor diagnostics for in vivo brain tumors. Linescan cameras effectively distinguish between pathological and healthy tissue, whereas snapshot cameras offer a potential alternative to reduce acquisition time.
Aim: Our research compares linescan and snapshot hyperspectral cameras for in vivo brain tissues and chromophore identification.
Approach: We compared a linescan pushbroom camera and a snapshot camera using images from 10 patients with various pathologies. Objective comparisons were made using unnormalized and normalized data for healthy and pathological tissues. We utilized the interquartile range (IQR) for the spectral angle mapping (SAM), the goodness-of-fit coefficient (GFC), and the root mean square error (RMSE) within the 659.95 to 951.42 nm range. In addition, we assessed the ability of both cameras to capture tissue chromophores by analyzing absorbance from reflectance information.
Results: The SAM metric indicates reduced dispersion and high similarity between cameras for pathological samples, with a 9.68% IQR for normalized data compared with 2.38% for unnormalized data. This pattern is consistent across GFC and RMSE metrics, regardless of tissue type. Moreover, both cameras could identify absorption peaks of certain chromophores. For instance, using the absorbance measurements of the linescan camera, we obtained SAM values below 0.235 for four peaks, regardless of the tissue and type of data under inspection. These peaks are one for cytochrome b in its oxidized form at , two for at and , and one for water at .
Conclusion: The spectral signatures of the cameras show more similarity with unnormalized data, likely due to snapshot sensor noise, resulting in noisier signatures post-normalization. Comparisons in this study suggest that snapshot cameras might be viable alternatives to linescan cameras for real-time brain tissue identification.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomedical Optics publishes peer-reviewed papers on the use of modern optical technology for improved health care and biomedical research.