Real‐time <i>in vivo</i> cancer diagnosis using raman spectroscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raman spectroscopy has becoming a practical tool for rapid in vivo tissue diagnosis. This paper provides an overview on the latest development of real‐time in vivo Raman systems for cancer detection. Instrumentation, data handling, as well as oncology applications of Raman techniques were covered. Optic fiber probes designs for Raman spectroscopy were discussed. Spectral data pre‐processing, feature extraction, and classification between normal/benign and malignant tissues were surveyed. Applications of Raman techniques for clinical diagnosis for different types of cancers, including skin cancer, lung cancer, stomach cancer, oesophageal cancer, colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, and breast cancer, were summarized. Schematic of a real‐time Raman spectrometer for skin cancer detection. Without correction, the image captured on CCD camera for a straight entrance slit has a curvature. By arranging the optic fiber array in reverse orientation, the curvature could be effectively corrected. magnified image Schematic of a real‐time Raman spectrometer for skin cancer detection. Without correction, the image captured on CCD camera for a straight entrance slit has a curvature. By arranging the optic fiber array in reverse orientation, the curvature could be effectively corrected.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it