Multivariate analysis of breast tissue using optical parameters extracted from a combined time-resolved fluorescence and diffuse reflectance system for tumor margin detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significance: Breast conservation therapy is the preferred technique for treating primary breast cancers. However, breast tumor margins are hard to determine as tumor borders are often ill-defined. As such, there exists a need for a clinically compatible tumor margin detection system. Aim: A combined time-resolved fluorescence and diffuse reflectance (TRF-DR) system has been developed to determine the optical properties of breast tissue. This study aims to improve tissue classification to aid in surgical decision making. Approach: Normal and tumor breast tissue were collected from 80 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma and measured in the optical system. Optical parameters were extracted, and the tissue underwent histopathological examination. In total, 761 adipose, 77 fibroglandular, and 347 tumor spectra were analyzed. Principal component analysis and decision tree modeling were performed using only TRF optical parameters, only DR optical parameters, and using the combined datasets. Results: The classification modeling using TRF data alone resulted in a tumor margin detection sensitivity of 72.3% and specificity of 88.3%. Prediction modeling using DR data alone resulted in greater sensitivity and specificity of 80.4% and 94.0%, respectively. Combining both datasets resulted in the improved sensitivity and specificity of 85.6% and 95.3%, respectively. While both sensitivity and specificity improved with the combined modeling, further study of fibroglandular tissue could result in improved classification. Conclusion: The combined TRF-DR system showed greater tissue classification capability than either technique alone. Further work studying more fibroglandular tissue and tissue of mixed composition would develop this system for intraoperative use for tumor margin 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".