Rapid detection of nasopharyngeal cancer using Raman spectroscopy and multivariate statistical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical spectroscopic techniques, including Raman spectroscopy, have shown promise for in vivo cancer diagnostics in a variety of organs. In this study, the potential use of a home‑made Raman spectral system with a millimeter order excitation laser spot size combined with a multivariate statistical analysis for the rapid detection and discrimination of nasopharyngeal cancer from normal nasopharyngeal tissue was evaluated. Raman scattering signals were acquired from 16 normal and 32 nasopharyngeal carcinoma tissue samples. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) based on principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least squares (PLS) were employed to generate diagnostic algorithms for the classification of different nasopharyngeal tissue types. Spectral differences in Raman spectra between the two types of tissues were revealed; the normalized intensities of Raman peaks at 1,001, 1,207 and 1,658 cm‑1 were more intense for nasopharyngeal carcinoma tissue compared to normal tissue, while Raman bands at 848, 936 and 1,446 cm‑1 were stronger in normal nasopharyngeal samples. The PCA‑LDA algorithm together with leave‑one‑out cross validation yields a diagnostic sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 87%, while the PLS method coupled with subwindow permutation analysis improves the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity to 85 and 88%, respectively. Therefore, Raman spectroscopy combined with PCA‑LDA/PLS demonstrated good potential for improving the clinical diagnosis of nasopharyngeal cancers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".