Past, present, and future of electrical impedance tomography and myography for medical applications: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review summarizes two emerging electrical impedance technologies: electrical impedance myography (EIM) and electrical impedance tomography (EIT). These methods involve injecting a current into tissue and recording the response at different frequencies to understand tissue properties. The review discusses basic methods and trends, particularly the use of electrodes: EIM uses electrodes for either injection or recording, while EIT uses them for both. Ag/AgCl electrodes are prevalent, and current injection is preferred over voltage injection due to better resistance to electrode wear and impedance changes. Advances in digital processing and integrated circuits have shifted EIM and EIT toward digital acquisition, using voltage-controlled current sources (VCCSs) that support multiple frequencies. The review details powerful processing algorithms and reconstruction tools for EIT and EIM, examining their strengths and weaknesses. It also summarizes commercial devices and clinical applications: EIT is effective for detecting cancerous tissue and monitoring pulmonary issues, while EIM is used for neuromuscular disease detection and monitoring. The role of machine learning and deep learning in advancing diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring is highlighted. This review provides a roadmap for researchers on device evolution, algorithms, reconstruction tools, and datasets, offering clinicians and researchers information on commercial devices and clinical studies for effective use and innovative research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".