Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33802369›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Glioma

Marco Riva, Tommaso Sciortino, Riccardo Secoli, Ester D'Amico, Sara Moccia, Bethania Fernandes, Marco Conti Nibali, Lorenzo Gay, Marco Rossi, Elena De Momi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Qualitative and quantitative assessment ofBiomedical optics express · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. A Single-Cell Metabolic Profiling Characterizes Human Aging via SlipChip-SERS.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Marco RivaDepartment of Medical Biotechnology and Translational Medicine, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4643-6451
Tommaso SciortinoUnit of Oncological Neurosurgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, 20089 Rozzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6214-1253
Riccardo SecoliThe Hamlyn Centre for Robotic Surgery, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4688-2494
Ester D'AmicoDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy.
Sara MocciaThe BioRobotics Institute and Department of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Piazza Martiri della Liberta' 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4494-8907
Bethania FernandesUnit of Pathology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4327-1586
Marco Conti NibaliUnit of Oncological Neurosurgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, 20089 Rozzano, Italy.
Lorenzo GayUnit of Oncological Neurosurgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, 20089 Rozzano, Italy.
Marco RossiUnit of Oncological Neurosurgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, 20089 Rozzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0196-2370
Elena De MomiDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy.
Lorenzo BelloUnit of Oncological Neurosurgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, 20089 Rozzano, Italy.
Humanitas University · ITPolitecnico di Milano · ITImperial College London · GBScuola Superiore Sant'Anna · IT

Funding

Horizon 2020 688279
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying tumor cells infiltrating normal-appearing brain tissue is critical to achieve a total glioma resection. Raman spectroscopy (RS) is an optical technique with potential for real-time glioma detection. Most RS reports are based on formalin-fixed or frozen samples, with only a few studies deployed on fresh untreated tissue. We aimed to probe RS on untreated brain biopsies exploring novel Raman bands useful in distinguishing glioma and normal brain tissue. Sixty-three fresh tissue biopsies were analyzed within few minutes after resection. A total of 3450 spectra were collected, with 1377 labelled as Healthy and 2073 as Tumor. Machine learning methods were used to classify spectra compared to the histo-pathological standard. The algorithms extracted information from 60 different Raman peaks identified as the most representative among 135 peaks screened. We were able to distinguish between tumor and healthy brain tissue with accuracy and precision of 83% and 82%, respectively. We identified 19 new Raman shifts with known biological significance. Raman spectroscopy was effective and accurate in discriminating glioma tissue from healthy brain ex-vivo in fresh samples. This study added new spectroscopic data that can contribute to further develop Raman Spectroscopy as an intraoperative tool for in-vivo glioma detection.

Indexed as

classificationgliomamachine learningneuro-oncologyRaman spectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID33802369
PMCPMC7959285
OpenAlexW3133699804

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.