Polarization memory rate as a metric to differentiate benign and malignant tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-invasive optical methods for cancer diagnostics, such as microscopy, spectroscopy, and polarimetry, are rapidly advancing. In this respect, finding new and powerful optical metrics is an indispensable task. Here we introduce polarization memory rate (PMR) as a sensitive metric for optical cancer diagnostics. PMR characterizes the preservation of circularly polarized light relative to linearly polarized light as light propagates in a medium. We hypothesize that because of well-known indicators associated with the morphological changes of cancer cells, like an enlarged nucleus size and higher chromatin density, PMR should be greater for cancerous than for the non-cancerous tissues. A thorough literature review reveals how this difference arises from the anomalous depolarization behaviour of many biological tissues. In physical terms, though most biological tissue primarily exhibits Mie scattering, it typically exhibits Rayleigh depolarization. However, in cancerous tissue the Mie depolarization regime becomes more prominent than Rayleigh. Experimental evidence of this metric is found in a preliminary clinical study using a novel Stokes polarimetry probe. We conducted in vivo measurements of 20 benign, 28 malignant and 59 normal skin sites with a 660 nm laser diode. The median PMR values for cancer vs non-cancer are significantly higher for cancer which supports our hypothesis. The reported fundamental differences in depolarization may persist for other types of cancer and create a conceptual basis for further developments in polarimetry applications for cancer detection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".