MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409632657 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2025-2507

Abstract 2507: Comparative assessment of data analysis methods to enable robust 10-second diagnosis of tissue pathologies with picosecond infrared laser mass spectrometry

2025· article· en· W4409632657 on OpenAlexaff
Darah Vlaminck, Alexa Fiorante, Lan Anna Ye, David G. Muñoz, Sunit Das, Gelareh Zadeh, Howard J. Ginsberg, Arash Zarrine‐Afsar

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMass spectrometryInfraredPicosecondLaserMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MedicineChemistryOpticsChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A survey of clinical outcome data suggests surgical approaches of the central nervous system cancers must vary based on type of cancer, its aggressiveness, chance of recurrence and associated risks. This is usually informed by feedback from a neuropathologist on call wherein the accuracy of diagnosis depends highly on the experience and training level of the pathologist. As such, to deliver robust personalized resections, the subjectivity of intraoperative diagnosis must be reduced.Picosecond infrared laser mass spectrometry (PIRL-MS) generates a fingerprint of cancer-specific tissue lipids that can form the basis for non-subjective diagnosis in only 10 seconds. Here, a differential diagnosis model must be incorporated with finer data analytics methods to help tease out cancer-specific spectral features in complex datasets.A hierarchical differential diagnosis (decision tree) model optimizing evidence-based adjustment of the extent of resection for n=62 lymphoma (no resection), n=96 metastatic carcinomas (aggressive resection) and n=216 gliomas (maximum safe margin resection), the latter comprised of n=93 isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) positive and n=132 negative mutational status was created. This tree flows in a logical order based on what a neuropathologist would use for diagnosis, albeit utilized for automated non-subjective diagnosis based on 10-second PIRL-MS lipid analysis. The goal was to optimize the best machine learning method at each discrimination point from a list of principal component analysis-linear discriminant analysis (PCA-LDA), partial-least squares discriminant analysis, lasso regression, random forest, XGBoost, and support vector machine.The hierarchical approach enabled simplification of class comparisons to only those in differential diagnosis, as such, eliminating the misclassification between classes at finer branches of tree. This allowed performance metrics to be generated at each discrimination point not distinguished in simultaneous prediction of all classes using a single multiclass model.Within all nodes, PCA-LDA (a linear method) showed best performance, especially compared to ensemble approaches. Using this approach, the hierarchical method delivered diagnosis of lymphoma, glioma and metastatic tumours in node 1 with sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 93%, respectively and was able to differentiate between IDH1 mutant and WT gliomas with the sensitivity and specificity of >93%, the latter not being possible in current intraoperative diagnosis workflows due to long analysis times.The utility of this optimized hierarchical approach with PIRL-MS data is manifested in the users’ ability to adjust the diagnosis depth commensurate with desired performance criteria, enabling incorporation of the clinical ‘cost’ of total resection of one tumour class compared to another. Citation Format: Darah Vlaminck, Alexa Fiorante, Lan Anna Ye, David Munoz, Sunit Das, Gelareh Zadeh, Howard Ginsberg, Arash Zarrine-Afsar. Comparative assessment of data analysis methods to enable robust 10-second diagnosis of tissue pathologies with picosecond infrared laser mass spectrometry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 2507.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207