Table 4.
Performance comparison of different technologies.
| Technology | Experiment | Number of Points | CEG | Sensitivity | R 2 | MAE | LOD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | |||||||
| NIR [68] | In vivo | 2737 | 94.2% | 5.7% | 0% | 0.1% | - | - | 0.65 mM | - |
| MIR [76] | In vivo | 14 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | - | - | 0.67 mM | - |
| PA [100] | In vivo | 76 | 70% | 30% | 0% | 0% | - | - | 1.03 mM | - |
| Fluorescence [105] | In vitro | 8 | - | - | - | - | 0.1296 μM−1 | 0.99 | - | 2 μM |
| Raman [110] | In vivo | 34 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.84 | 0.37 mM | - |
| OCT [114] | In vivo | 81 | - | - | - | - | 5.78% mM−1 | 0.91 | - | - |
| THz [120] | Ex vivo | 20 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.97 | 0.25 mM | - |
| Microwave [138] | In vivo | 89 | - | - | - | - | 0.0235 dB*mM−1 | - | - | 1.33 mM |
MAE, mean absolute error; LOD, limit of detection.