Electric-Field Molecular Fingerprinting to Probe Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Human biofluids serve as indicators of various physiological states, and recent advances in molecular profiling technologies hold great potential for enhancing clinical diagnostics. Leveraging recent developments in laser-based electric-field molecular fingerprinting, we assess its potential for in vitro diagnostics. In a proof-of-concept clinical study involving 2533 participants, we conducted randomized measurement campaigns to spectroscopically profile bulk venous blood plasma across lung, prostate, breast, and bladder cancer. Employing machine learning, we detected infrared signatures specific to therapy-naı̈ve cancer states, distinguishing them from matched control individuals with a cross-validation ROC AUC of 0.88 for lung cancer and values ranging from 0.68 to 0.69 for the other three cancer entities. In an independent held-out test data set, designed to reflect different experimental conditions from those used during model training, we achieved a lung cancer detection ROC AUC of 0.81. Our study demonstrates that electric-field molecular fingerprinting is a robust technological framework broadly applicable to disease phenotyping under real-world conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".