Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34799750›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021

Comparison of Whiskbroom and Pushbroom darkfield elastic light scattering spectroscopic imaging for head and neck cancer identification in a mouse model.

Miriam C Bassler, Mona Stefanakis, Inês Sequeira, Edwin Ostertag, Alexandra Wagner, Jörg W Bartsch, Marion Roeßler, Robert Mandic, Eike F Reddmann, Anita Lorenz and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Miriam C BasslerProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5473-4005
Mona StefanakisProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9459-0640
Inês SequeiraInstitute of Dentistry, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3342-665X
Edwin OstertagProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0492-0544
Alexandra WagnerProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4281-1392
Jörg W BartschDepartment of Neurosurgery, Philipps University Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35033, Marburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2773-3357
Marion RoeßlerDepartment of Pathology, Philipps University Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35033, Marburg, Germany.
Robert MandicDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Philipps University Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35033, Marburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2379-5515
Eike F ReddmannProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6308-0966
Anita LorenzProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4658-9036
Karsten RebnerProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3577-2903
Marc BrechtProcess Analysis and Technology (PA&T), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762, Reutlingen, Germany. marc.brecht@reutlingen-university.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-1448
Reutlingen University · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DEQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Barts Charity Lectureship MGU045MWK Baden-Württemberg Doctoral program of the University of Tübingen anProjekt DEAL for Open Access Publication 3399 (Reutlingen university)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The early detection of head and neck cancer is a prolonged challenging task. It requires a precise and accurate identification of tissue alterations as well as a distinct discrimination of cancerous from healthy tissue areas. A novel approach for this purpose uses microspectroscopic techniques with special focus on hyperspectral imaging (HSI) methods. Our proof-of-principle study presents the implementation and application of darkfield elastic light scattering spectroscopy (DF ELSS) as a non-destructive, high-resolution, and fast imaging modality to distinguish lingual healthy from altered tissue regions in a mouse model. The main aspect of our study deals with the comparison of two varying HSI detection principles, which are a point-by-point and line scanning imaging, and whether one might be more appropriate in differentiating several tissue types. Statistical models are formed by deploying a principal component analysis (PCA) with the Bayesian discriminant analysis (DA) on the elastic light scattering (ELS) spectra. Overall accuracy, sensitivity, and precision values of 98% are achieved for both models whereas the overall specificity results in 99%. An additional classification of model-unknown ELS spectra is performed. The predictions are verified with histopathological evaluations of identical HE-stained tissue areas to prove the model's capability of tissue distinction. In the context of our proof-of-principle study, we assess the Pushbroom PCA-DA model to be more suitable for tissue type differentiations and thus tissue classification. In addition to the HE-examination in head and neck cancer diagnosis, the usage of HSI-based statistical models might be conceivable in a daily clinical routine.

Indexed as

LightScattering, RadiationAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLPrincipal Component AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckTongue NeoplasmsChemometrics/statisticsClinical/biomedical analysisHead and neck cancerMicrospectroscopyMie elastic light scattering spectroscopyMouse tumor model

Identifiers

PMID34799750
PMCPMC8626402
OpenAlexW3213941487

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.