Blood plasma resonance Raman spectroscopy combined with multivariate analysis for esophageal cancer detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We herein report a novel, reliable and inexpensive method for detecting esophageal cancer using blood plasma resonance Raman spectroscopy combined with multivariate analysis methods. The blood plasma samples were divided into late stage cancer group (n = 164), early stage cancer group (n = 35) and normal group (n = 135) based on clinical pathological diagnosis. Using a specially designed quartz capillary tube as sample holder, we obtained higher quality resonance Raman spectra of blood plasma than existing method. The study demonstrated that the carotenoids levels in blood plasma were reduced in esophageal cancer patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (and 95% confidence interval) calculated by wavenumber selection and principal component analysis combined with linear discriminant analysis (PC‐LDA) algorithm were 0.894 (0.858‐0.929), 0.901 (0.841‐0.960) and 0.871 (0.799‐0.942) for differentiating late cancer from normal, late cancer from early cancer, and early cancer from normal respectively. The contribution from the two carotenoids wavenumber regions of 1155 and 1515 cm −1 were more than 84.2%. The results show that the plasma carotenoids could be a potential biomarker for screening esophageal cancer using resonance Raman spectroscopy combined with wavenumber selection and PC‐LDA algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".