Application of Intraoperative Mass Spectrometry and Data Analytics for Oncological Margin Detection, A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A common phase of early-stage oncological treatment is the surgical resection of cancerous tissue. The presence of cancer cells on the resection margin, referred to as positive margin, is correlated with the recurrence of cancer and may require re-operation, negatively impacting many facets of patient outcomes. There exists a significant gap in the surgeon's ability to intraoperatively delineate between tissues. Mass spectrometry methods have shown considerable promise as intraoperative tissue profiling tools that can assist with the complete resection of cancer. To do so, the vastness of the information collected through these modalities must be digested, relying on robust and efficient extraction of insights through data analysis pipelines. METHODS: We review clinical mass spectrometry literature and prioritize intraoperatively applied modalities. We also survey the data analysis methods employed in these studies. RESULTS: Our review outlines the advantages and shortcomings of mass spectrometry imaging and point-based tissue probing methods. For each modality, we identify statistical, linear transformation and machine learning techniques that demonstrate high performance in classifying cancerous tissues across several organ systems. A limited number of studies presented results captured intraoperatively. CONCLUSION: Through continued research of data centric techniques, like mass spectrometry, and the development of robust analysis approaches, intraoperative margin assessment is becoming feasible. SIGNIFICANCE: By establishing the relatively short history of mass spectrometry techniques applied to surgical studies, we hope to inform future applications and aid in the selection of suitable data analysis frameworks for the development of intraoperative margin detection technologies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".