ArticlePloS one2024
Multimodal MALDI imaging mass spectrometry for improved diagnosis of melanoma.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal models for skin cancer classification using clinical freetext and dermatoscopic images.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- MALDI spatial proteomics: a mini review of approaches and techniques.Analytical methods : advancing methods and applications · 2026Review
- Topological segmentation of mass spectrometry imaging data.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2025Article
- The Role of MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry in Photodynamic Therapy: From Photosensitizer Design to Clinical Applications.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Chemical imaging delineates Aβ plaque polymorphism across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Skin Cancer Image Classification Using Artificial Intelligence Strategies: A Systematic Review.Journal of imaging · 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
Abstract
Imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) provides promising avenues to augment histopathological investigation with rich spatio-molecular information. We have previously developed a classification model to differentiate melanoma from nevi lesions based on IMS protein data, a task that is challenging solely by histopathologic evaluation. Most IMS-focused studies collect microscopy in tandem with IMS data, but this microscopy data is generally omitted in downstream data analysis. Microscopy, nevertheless, forms the basis for traditional histopathology and thus contains invaluable morphological information. In this work, we developed a multimodal classification pipeline that uses deep learning, in the form of a pre-trained artificial neural network, to extract the meaningful morphological features from histopathological images, and combine it with the IMS data. To test whether this deep learning-based classification strategy can improve on our previous results in classification of melanocytic neoplasia, we utilized MALDI IMS data with collected serial H&E stained sections for 331 patients, and compared this multimodal classification pipeline to classifiers using either exclusively microscopy or IMS data. The multimodal pipeline achieved the best performance, with ROC-AUCs of 0.968 vs. 0.938 vs. 0.931 for the multimodal, unimodal microscopy and unimodal IMS pipelines respectively. Due to the use of a pre-trained network to perform the morphological feature extraction, this pipeline does not require any training on large amounts of microscopy data. As such, this framework can be readily applied to improve classification performance in other experimental settings where microscopy data is acquired in tandem with IMS experiments.
Indexed as
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.