Micro‐relief characterization of benign and malignant skin lesions by polarization speckle analysis in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: A recent direction in skin disease classification is to develop quantitative diagnostic techniques. Skin relief, colloquially known as roughness, is an important clinical feature. The aim of this study is to demonstrate a novel polarization speckle technique to quantitatively measure roughness on skin lesions in vivo. We then calculate the average roughness of different types of skin lesions to determine the extent to which polarization speckle roughness measurements can be used to identify skin cancer. METHODS: The experimental conditions were set to target the fine relief structure on the order of ten microns within a small field of view of 3 mm. The device was tested in a clinical study on patients with malignant and benign skin lesions that resemble cancer. The cancer group includes 37 malignant melanomas (MM), 43 basal cell carcinomas (BCC), and 26 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), all categories confirmed by gold standard biopsy. The benign group includes 109 seborrheic keratoses (SK), 79 nevi, and 11 actinic keratoses (AK). Normal skin roughness was obtained for the same patients (301 different body sites proximal to the lesion). RESULTS: The average root mean squared (rms) roughness ± standard error of the mean for MM and nevus was equal to 19 ± 5 μm and 21 ± 3 μm, respectively. Normal skin has rms roughness of 31 ± 3 μm, other lesions have roughness of 35 ± 10 μm (AK), 35 ± 7 μm (SCC), 31 ± 4 μm (SK), and 30 ± 5 μm (BCC). CONCLUSION: An independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test indicates that MM and nevus can be separated from each of the tested types of lesions, except each other. These results quantify clinical knowledge of lesion roughness and could be useful for optical 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".