ArticleScientific reports2025
Design and development of a portable multiwavelength LED-based diffuse reflectance spectroscopy tool for rapid breast cancer identification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Detection of margin positivity in breast cancer using fluorescence and diffuse reflectance imaging.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
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
Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women worldwide, emphasizing the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic tools to improve patient outcomes and survival rates. In this study, we developed a diagnostic tool-a multispectral pen based on diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS)-to enable real-time ex vivo differentiation between malignant and adjacent normal human breast tissues, primarily based on lipid and collagen absorbers. Diffuse reflectance was observed to be higher, while reduced absorbance was lower for malignant tissue compared to adjacent normal tissue across 62 samples (50 formalin-fixed and 12 fresh tissues). Clinical data from 31 patients, with paired adjacent normal and malignant samples per patient, revealed significantly lower mean reduced absorbance values for malignant tissue at three wavelengths: 850 nm (0.13 ± 0.02 vs. 0.28 ± 0.02), 940 nm (0.19 ± 0.01 vs. 0.37 ± 0.02), and 1050 nm (0.25 ± 0.03 vs. 0.43 ± 0.03) with p < 0.0001 across formalin-fixed tissue samples. Using a CatBoost machine learning model, the tool achieved an accuracy of 90%, a sensitivity of 80%, and a specificity of 100% in distinguishing malignant from normal tissues. Limitations include a small sample size and limited patient diversity. Future work aims to integrate the DRS technology with machine learning algorithms to provide real-time intraoperative margin assessment, and testing in a larger study.
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.