Ambient Ionization Mass Spectrometry for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Margin Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for new technologies that would enable rapid disease diagnosis based on diagnostic molecular signatures. Ambient ionization mass spectrometry has revolutionized the means by which molecular information can be obtained from tissue samples in real time and with minimal sample pretreatment. New developments in ambient ionization techniques applied to clinical research suggest that ambient ionization mass spectrometry will soon become a routine medical tool for tissue diagnosis. CONTENT: This review summarizes the main developments in ambient ionization techniques applied to tissue analysis, with focus on desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, probe electrospray ionization, touch spray, and rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry. We describe their applications to human cancer research and surgical margin evaluation, highlighting integrated approaches tested for ex vivo and in vivo human cancer tissue analysis. We also discuss the challenges for clinical implementation of these tools and offer perspectives on the future of the field. SUMMARY: A variety of studies have showcased the value of ambient ionization mass spectrometry for rapid and accurate cancer diagnosis. Small molecules have been identified as potential diagnostic biomarkers, including metabolites, fatty acids, and glycerophospholipids. Statistical analysis allows tissue discrimination with high accuracy rates (>95%) being common. This young field has challenges to overcome before it is ready to be broadly accepted as a medical tool for cancer diagnosis. Growing research in new, integrated ambient ionization mass spectrometry technologies and the ongoing improvements in the existing tools make this field very promising for future translation into the clinic.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".