Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31461884›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019

Raman Spectroscopy Analysis for Optical Diagnosis of Oral Cancer Detection.

Ming-Jer Jeng, Mukta Sharma, Lokesh Sharma, Ting-Yu Chao, Shiang-Fu Huang, Liann-Be Chang, Shih-Lin Wu, Lee Chow

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ming-Jer JengDepartment of Electronic Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
Mukta SharmaDepartment of Electronic Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
Lokesh SharmaAI Innovation Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8362-510X
Ting-Yu ChaoDepartment of Electronic Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
Shiang-Fu HuangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou 244, Taiwan. shiangfu.huang@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3582-9938
Liann-Be ChangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou 244, Taiwan. liann@mail.cgu.edu.tw.ORCID 0000-0003-2174-2022
Shih-Lin WuAI Innovation Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
Lee ChowDepartment of Physics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
Chang Gung University · TWChang Gung University of Science and Technology · TWUniversity of Central Florida · US

Funding

Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou BMRPA52, CMRPD2F0261 and CMRPD2G0291
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Raman spectroscopy (RS) is widely used as a non-invasive technique in screening for the diagnosis of oral cancer. The potential of this optical technique for several biomedical applications has been proved. This work studies the efficacy of RS in detecting oral cancer using sub-site-wise differentiation. A total of 80 samples (44 tumor and 36 normal) were cryopreserved from three different sub-sites: The tongue, the buccal mucosa, and the gingiva of the oral mucosa during surgery. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) were used with principal component analysis (PCA) to classify the samples and the classifications were validated by leave-one-out-cross-validation (LOOCV) and k-fold cross-validation methods. The normal and tumor tissues were differentiated under the PCA-LDA model with an accuracy of 81.25% (sensitivity: 77.27%, specificity: 86.11%). The PCA-QDA classifier model differentiated these tissues with an accuracy of 87.5% (sensitivity: 90.90%, specificity: 83.33%). The PCA-QDA classifier model outperformed the PCA-LDA-based classifier. The model studies revealed that protein, amino acid, and beta-carotene variations are the main biomolecular difference markers for detecting oral cancer.

Indexed as

cryopreserved tissueoral cancerPCA-LDAPCA-QDARaman spectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID31461884
PMCPMC6780219
OpenAlexW2970432790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.