ArticleBiomedical optics express2023
Comparison of whole blood and serum samples of breast cancer based on laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy with machine learning.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning enhanced optical spectroscopy for breast cancer diagnosis: A review.Lasers in medical science · 2026Review
- From Fundamentals of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy to Recent Advancements in Cancer Detection and Calcified Tissues Analysis: An Overview (2015-2025).Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- On exploring the potential of machine learning assisted nanoparticles enhanced laser induced breakdown spectroscopy as an initial screening tool for early breast cancer detection.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Article
- Mucins as Precision Biomarkers in Glioma: Emerging Evidence for Their Potential in Biospecimen Analysis and Outcome Prediction.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To identify cancer from non-cancer is one of the most challenging issues nowadays in the early diagnosis of cancer. The primary issue of early detection is to choose a suitable type of sample collection to diagnose cancer. A comparison of whole blood and serum samples of breast cancer was studied using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) with machine learning methods. For LIBS spectra measurement, blood samples were dropped on a substrate of boric acid. For the discrimination of breast cancer and non-cancer samples, eight machine learning models were applied to LIBS spectral data, including decision tree, discrimination analysis, logistic regression, naïve byes, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbor, ensemble and neural networks classifiers. Discrimination between whole blood samples showed that narrow neural networks and trilayer neural networks both provided 91.7% highest prediction accuracy and serum samples showed that all the decision tree models provided 89.7% highest prediction accuracy. However, using whole blood as sample achieved the strong emission lines of spectra, better discrimination results of PCA and maximum prediction accuracy of machine learning models as compared to using serum samples. These merits concluded that whole blood samples could be a good option for the rapid detection of breast cancer. This preliminary research may provide the complementary method for early detection of breast cancer.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.