MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986081496 · doi:10.1002/tbio.201900016

Incorporating patient demographics into Raman spectroscopy algorithm improves in vivo skin cancer diagnostic specificity

2019· article· en· W2986081496 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianhua Zhao, Haishan Zeng, Sunil Kalia, Harvey Lui

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Biophotonics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlVancouver Coastal HealthBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Dermatology Foundation
KeywordsBasal cell carcinomaActinic keratosisDemographicsMedicineSkin cancerSeborrheic keratosisLesionReceiver operating characteristicDermatologyIn vivoBasal cellCancerInternal medicineOncologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The study objective is to evaluate whether incorporating patient demographics into Raman spectral analysis can improve diagnostic performance. In vivo Raman spectra of 731 cases were analyzed by dividing the data into two groups: skin cancers/precancers (malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and actinic keratosis, n = 340) and benign lesions (pigmented nevi and seborrheic keratosis, n = 391). Patient age, gender, skin type and location of the lesion were taken into account in the analysis. Multivariate statistical analysis including principal component and general discriminant analysis and partial least squares (PLS) were utilized for lesion discrimination. Based on PLS analysis, the area under receiver operating characteristic curve was improved from 0.913 to 0.934 ( P < .05) after incorporating patient demographics into the algorithm; the specificity was increased from 33.5% to 44.5%, 56.0% to 68.5% and 76.0% to 82.1% for sensitivity of 99%, 95% and 90%, respectively ( P < .05 for all sensitivity levels).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational BiophotonicsSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207