4.6 Article

Aluminium foil as an alternative substrate for the spectroscopic interrogation of endometrial cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOPHOTONICS
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jbio.201700372

关键词

attenuated total reflection; infared; ATR-FTIR spectroscopy; substrate; aluminium foil; low-E slide; plasma; serum; endometrial cancer; gynaecological cancer

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  2. CNPq [305962/2014-0]
  3. CAPES/Doutorado Pleno no Exterior
  4. Rosemere Cancer Foundation
  5. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biospectroscopy has the potential to investigate and characterize biological samples and could, therefore, be utilized to diagnose various diseases in a clinical environment. An important consideration in spectrochemical studies is the cost-effectiveness of the substrate used to support the sample, as high expense would limit their translation into clinic. In this paper, the performance of low-cost aluminium (Al) foil substrates was compared with the commonly used low-emissivity (low-E) slides. Attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to analyse blood plasma and serum samples from women with endometrial cancer and healthy controls. The 2 populations were differentiated using principal component analysis with support vector machines with 100% sensitivity in plasma samples (endometrial cancer = 70; healthy controls = 15) using both Al foil and low-E slides as substrates. The same sensitivity results (100%) were achieved for serum samples (endometrial cancer=60; healthy controls = 15). Specificity was found higher using Al foil (90%) in comparison to low-E slides (85%) and lower using Al foil (70%) in comparison to low-E slides in serum samples. The establishment of Al foil as low-cost and highly performing substrate would pave the way for large-scale, multicentre studies and potentially for routine clinical use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据