ArticleJournal of biosciences2024
Proof-of-principle study using
Article in Journal of biosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening strategies for cancer, the second largest cause of deaths, exist, but are invasive, cumbersome, and expensive. Many cancers lack viable screening modalities all together. Circulating tumor cell clusters (CTCCs) are seen during early stages of cancer and are larger than normal blood cells. Discrimination of such differential sizes by real-time ultrasound scanning of a blood vessel offers an attractive universal screening tool for cancer. Yeast colonies were grown to different sizes mimicking CTCCs and normal blood cells, using sugar and starch to incubate and sodium fluoride to arrest growth after specified times. They were circulated using syringes and an infusion pump through a wall-less ultrasound phantom, made using agar (mimicking human soft tissue), and Doppler ultrasound was performed, with screenshots taken. Key characteristics of particles of interest were identified. Ultrasound data were processed and used to train a convolutional neural network (CNN). Six models with binary classification were tested. Doppler signals of CTCC surrogates could be visually distinguished from normal cells and normal saline, proving the principle of ultrasound size discrimination of CTCCs. The most accurate machine learning model yielded 98.35% accuracy in the prediction of CTCCs, exceeding human evaluation accuracy. Thus, machine learning could help automate and improve detection of cancer by screening for CTCCs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38200669W4390701146What 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.