Variations in the Abundance of Lipid Biomarker Ions in Mass Spectrometry Images Correlate to Tissue Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While mass spectrometry (MS) imaging is widely used to investigate the molecular composition of ex vivo slices of cancerous tumors, little is known about how variations in the cellular properties of cancer tissue can influence cancer biomarker ion images. To better understand the basis for variations in the abundances of cancer biomarker ions seen in MS images of relatively homogeneous ex vivo tumor samples, sections of snap frozen human breast cancer murine xenografts were subjected to desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) imaging. Serial sections were then stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and subjected to detailed morphometric cellular analysis, using a commercial digital pathology platform augmented with custom-tailored image analysis algorithms developed in-house. Gross morphological heterogeneities due to stroma, vasculature, and noncancer cells were mapped in the tumor and found to not correlate with the areas of suppressed cancer biomarker abundance. Instead, the ion abundances of major breast cancer biomarkers were found to correlate with the cytoplasmic area of cancer cells that comprised the tumor tissue. Therefore, detailed cellular analyses can be used to rationalize subtle heterogeneities in ion abundance in MS images, not explained by the presence of gross morphological heterogeneities such as stroma.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".