MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of exhaled breath of lung cancer patients using infrared spectroscopy.

2020· article· en· W3029230438 on OpenAlexaff
Tony Reiman, Robert D. Thompson, Farah Naz, James Charles Roger Michael, Erik Scheme, Angkoon Phinyomark, Luisa Galvis, Trisha Daigle-Maloney, Amanda Caissie, Joseph Ojah, Maged Salem, Holly A. Campbell, Erin G. Brooks, Stephen Graham, Chris Purves, Gisia Beydaghyan, Mahmoud Abdelsalam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsMoncton HospitalUniversity of New BrunswickHorizon Health NetworkDalhousie UniversitySaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerCohortReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21037 Background: Currently low-dose computed tomography is used for lung cancer (LC) screening, but is limited by radiation exposure, cost, and a high false detection rate (1,2). An accurate, accessible and affordable screening technology is needed to improve detection of LC in high risk individuals. Methods: We conducted an unblinded, prospective cohort study on the effectiveness of a novel technology utilizing infrared absorption measurements via cavity ringdown spectroscopy (IR-CRDS) to differentiate the expired breath of treatment-naïve LC patients from controls without known cancer. Breath samples were taken from 100 LC patients and 98 control subjects but, only 62 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 96 control samples were analyzed. Patients on treatment were eligible but, the protocol was amended to exclude these due to signal ambiguities. Samples were also excluded due to missing data, unclear histologic subtypes, or if they were classified as small cell LC samples to prevent obscuring the NSCLC signal. A piecewise cubic spline interpolation was used for the spectra with missing values (3). After first- and second-derivative spectra were computed to increase the information density, a one-dimensional local binary pattern extracted features from the spectra (4). Meaningful spectra-based features were selected using a minimum redundancy maximum relevance algorithm (5). Finally, a classification model was built using a support vector machine classifier (3). Results: The table below characterizes each cohort. The discriminant analysis differentiated between NSCLC and control cases with a cross validation accuracy of 86.1% (89.6% sensitivity and 80.7% specificity) using 20 selected spectra-based features. Conclusions: IR absorption measurements can be used to accurately discriminate between NSCLC and control participants. We continue to build our database to support more robust machine learning models. To our knowledge, this is the first time IR-CRDS has been used to differentiate between NSCLC and control cases. [Table: see text]

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207