MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390687520 · doi:10.48083/nczw3015

Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer With Vibrational Spectroscopy: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4390687520 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arthur Yim, Matthew Alberto, Varun Sharma, Bayden R. Wood, Jai Raman, Lih‐Ming Wong, Joseph Ischia, Damien Bolton

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurface-enhanced Raman spectroscopySpectroscopyMEDLINERaman spectroscopyMedical physicsPathologyMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringChemistryOpticsPhysicsRaman scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionVibrational spectroscopy (VS) is a new and rapidly evolving technology in cancer diagnostics. Originating from analytical chemistry, VS evaluates vibrations of nuclei to produce a unique “biological fingerprint.” While multiple studies have been published on this technology and physician awareness has increased, no systematic review has evaluated the role of VS in bladder cancer (BCa) tissue diagnosis.MethodsTo conduct this systematic review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies that used Raman spectroscopy (RS), surface-enhanced RS (SERS), infrared spectroscopy (IR) or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to analyze human BCa specimens. Studies using animal tissue or liquid biopsies were excluded. We synthesized the evidence by comparing modalities, study design, data analysis techniques, and diagnostic accuracy. The quality of evidence was evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool.ResultsOut of 362 results, 20 studies met our inclusion criteria. There has been growing interest in VS use in BCa, with 50% of the studies published in the past 5 years. RS was the most commonly used modality (65%), followed by IR (20%) and SERS (10%). Only one study compared RS to IR (5%). The mean sample size was 44 patients (range, 6–214). To date, there have been only 2 in vivo studies, with the remaining ex vivo studies performed with large variation in tissue preparation, data analysis, and reporting. Advancements in fiber optic probes and machine-learning data analysis techniques, and increased computational power have improved diagnostic accuracy up to 98% sensitivity and 100% specificity.ConclusionsVS shows high potential for BCa diagnosis, but there is a need for uniform reporting methods and studies with adequate sample sizes to validate the models. RS has shown promising results, with ongoing improvements in fiber optic probes allowing its integration into conventional cystoscopes. While no single VS modality has proven to be perfect, a multimodal approach is likely required to establish its value in clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207