ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Anomaly detection using intraoperative iKnife data: a comparative analysis in breast cancer surgery.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry in surgery: a systematic review.The British journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIntraoperative margin assessment is crucial to ensure complete tumor removal and minimize the risk of cancer recurrence during breast-conserving surgery. The Intelligent Knife (iKnife), a mass spectrometry device that analyzes surgical smoke, shows promise in near-real-time margin evaluation. However, current AI models depend on labeled ex-vivo datasets, which are costly and time-consuming to produce. This research explores the potential of machine learning anomaly detection models to reduce reliance on labeled ex-vivo datasets by utilizing unlabeled intraoperative spectra.
methodsiKnife spectra were collected intraoperatively from 15 breast cancer surgeries. Ex-vivo samples were recorded from the resected specimen by a pathologist. Healthy samples were from the margin, and tumor samples were from the cross-section. We trained four anomaly detection methods, Isolation Forest (iForest), One Class Principal Component Analysis (OCPCA), Generalized One Class Discriminative Subspaces (GODS), and its Kernelized extension (KGODS), under two strategies: (i) intraoperative data only and (ii) intraoperative data plus healthy ex-vivo data. Performance was evaluated via four-fold cross-validation on labeled ex-vivo samples, with an additional ensemble approach on a held-out set. We compared the models to benchmark supervised classifiers and explored intraoperative feasibility with a retrospective case.
resultsUsing intraoperative data alone, the average balanced accuracies were 70% (iForest), 81% (OC-PCA), 77% (GODS), and 81% (KGODS) during four-fold cross-validation. Adding healthy ex-vivo data improved performance across all models; however, OC-PCA remained competitive without ex-vivo labels. On the held-out set, OC-PCA trained only on intraoperative data achieved 81% balanced accuracy, 90% sensitivity, and 72% specificity. OC-PCA was selected for intraoperative feasibility and correctly detected the tumor breach with one false positive.
conclusionAnomaly detection models, particularly OC-PCA, can identify positive breast cancer margins with no labeled ex-vivo data. Though slightly lower in performance than supervised classifiers, they offer a promising low-resource alternative for intraoperative label generation and semi-supervised training, which can enhance clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40728554What 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.