Polarization speckle imaging as a potential technique for<i>in vivo</i>skin cancer detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the Western world. In order to accurately detect the disease, especially malignant melanoma-the most fatal form of skin cancer-at an early stage when the prognosis is excellent, there is an urgent need to develop noninvasive early detection methods. We believe that polarization speckle patterns, defined as a spatial distribution of depolarization ratio of traditional speckle patterns, can be an important tool for skin cancer detection. To demonstrate our technique, we conduct a large in vivo clinical study of 214 skin lesions, and show that statistical moments of the polarization speckle pattern could differentiate different types of skin lesions, including three common types of skin cancers, malignant melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and two benign lesions, melanocytic nevus and seborrheic keratoses. In particular, the fourth order moment achieves better or similar sensitivity and specificity than many well-known and accepted optical techniques used to differentiate melanoma and seborrheic keratosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".