An Assessment of the Utility of Tissue Smears in Rapid Cancer Profiling with Desorption Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (DESI-MS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometry imaging with desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) is used to characterize cancer from ex vivo slices of tissues. The process is time-consuming. The use of tissue smears for DESI-MS analysis has been proposed as it eliminates the time required to snap-freeze and section the tissue. To assess the utility of tissue smears for rapid cancer characterization, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to evaluate the concordance between DESI-MS profiles of breast cancer from tissue slices and smears prepared on various surfaces. PCA suggested no statistical discrimination between DESI-MS profiles of tissue sections and tissue smears prepared on glass, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and porous PTFE. However, the abundances of cancer biomarker ions varied between sections and smears, with DESI-MS analysis of tissue sections yielding higher ion abundances of cancer biomarkers compared with smears. Coefficient of variance (CV) analysis suggests DESI-MS profiles from tissue smears are as reproducible as the ones from tissue sections. The limit of detection with smear samples from single pixel analysis is comparable to tissue sections that average the signal from a tissue area of 0.01 mm 2 . The smears prepared on the PTFE surface possessed a higher degree of homogeneity compared with the smears prepared on the glass surface. This allowed single MS scans (~1 s) from random positions across the surface of the smear to be used in rapid cancer typing with good reproducibility, providing pathologic information for cancer typing at speeds suitable for clinical utility.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".