Optical biomarkers for breast cancer derived from dynamic diffuse optical tomography
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
Diffuse optical tomography (DOT) is a noninvasive, nonionizing imaging modality that uses near-infrared light to visualize optically relevant chromophores. A recently developed dynamic DOT imaging system enables the study of hemodynamic effects in the breast during a breath-hold. Dynamic DOT imaging was performed in a total of 21 subjects (age 54±10 years) including 3 healthy subjects and 18 subjects with benign (n=8) and malignant (n=14) masses. Three-dimensional time-series images of the percentage change in oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin concentrations ([HbO2] and [Hb]) from baseline are obtained over the course of a breath-hold. At a time point of 15 s following the end of the breath-hold, [Hb] in healthy breasts has returned to near-baseline values (1.6%±0.5%), while tumor-bearing breasts have increased levels of [Hb] (6.8%±3.6%, p<0.01). Further, healthy subjects have a higher correlation between the breasts over the course of the breath-hold as compared with the subjects with breast cancer (healthy: 0.96±0.02; benign: 0.89±0.02; malignant: 0.78±0.23, p<0.05). Therefore this study shows that dynamic features extracted from DOT measurements can differentiate healthy and diseased breast tissues. These features provide a physiologic method for identifying breast cancer without the need for ionizing radiation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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