Nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to assess anti-cancerous drug effectiveness in cancer treatment using TEM imaging

Debarshi Roy; Mehedi Hasan; Prabhakar Pradhan; Prakash Adhikari; Vijayalakshmi Sridhar

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to assess anti-cancerous drug effectiveness in cancer treatment using TEM imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the standard deviation of the inverse participation ratio, computed from TEM pixel intensity fluctuations, acts as a nanoscale disorder biomarker that rises 70% in tumor-forming ovarian cells and falls 60% or 50%…

desk verdict Plausible proof-of-concept for IPR-based drug response in ovarian cancer cells, but the quantitative claim rests on uncontrolled staining, a post hoc length-scale choice, and missing error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02665 v1 pith:5SCMPMP3 submitted 2019-09-05 physics.bio-ph physics.med-ph

Prakash Adhikari , Mehedi Hasan , Vijayalakshmi Sridhar , Debarshi Roy , Prabhakar Pradhan This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.bio-phphysics.med-ph

keywords inverseparticipationratiotransmissionelectronmicroscopyovariancancernanoscalestructuraldisorderanti-cancerdrugeffectivenesstight-bindingHamiltonianmassdensityfluctuationsbiomarker

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to establish that the amount of nanoscale disorder inside a cell, read off a transmission electron microscopy image, can serve as an early quantitative readout of whether an anti-cancer drug is working. The authors compute the inverse participation ratio (IPR)—a measure of how concentrated wave eigenfunctions are in a disordered medium—from the intensity fluctuations in TEM images of ovarian cells, and use its standard deviation as a disorder biomarker. They report that this metric increases by about 70% from non-tumorigenic OV202 NTC cells to tumorigenic OV202 Sh1 cells, and then decreases by about 60% under AACOCF3 and about 50% under MAFP, nearly back to the normal value. If correct, this gives a label-free, imaging-based way to assess drug efficacy at the nanoscale in the early stages of treatment, before gross morphological changes are visible.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inverse participation ratio (IPR), a number that measures how localized the eigenfunctions of a wave equation are in a disordered medium. Here the disorder is generated from a TEM image: each pixel's normalized intensity fluctuation defines the on-site energy of a tight-binding Hamiltonian on a 2D lattice, and the eigenfunctions of that Hamiltonian are used to compute the IPR. The load-bearing quantity is the ensemble standard deviation $\sigma(\mathrm{IPR})$, which the paper treats as proportional to the disorder strength $L_d = \delta n \times l_c$, the product of refractive-index fluctuation and spatial correlation length. This machinery converts a raw grayscale image into a single scalar that can be compared across cell lines and drug treatments.

What would settle it

Take the same embedded cell block and cut sections at 50, 100, and 150 nm thickness, then compute $\sigma(\mathrm{IPR})$ at the 165 nm length scale for each; if the metric changes substantially across thicknesses while the biology is fixed, the linear TEM-intensity-to-density mapping is not reliable enough to serve as a drug-response biomarker.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the assumption that TEM pixel intensity is linearly proportional to local mass density and refractive index, the authors normalize the intensity fluctuation at each pixel to build an optical potential $\varepsilon_i = \delta n(x,y)/n_0 \propto \delta I_{\mathrm{TEM}}/I_0$. This potential enters a tight-binding Hamiltonian whose eigenfunctions are used to compute the IPR. The central discovery is that the ensemble standard deviation $\sigma(\mathrm{IPR})$, evaluated at a 165 nm length scale, behaves as a one-parameter disorder biomarker: it increases by 70% from non-tumorigenic NTC to tumorigenic Sh1 cells, and decreases by roughly 60% (AACOCF3) and 50% (MAFP) after drug treatment, reversing nearly to the non-tumorigenic level. The authors interpret these nanoscale mass-density fluctuations as tracking both carcinogenesis and drug response.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that TEM pixel intensity is linearly proportional to local mass density and refractive index, so the normalized intensity fluctuations used to build the Hamiltonian encode the cell's biological disorder rather than staining, section thickness, or imaging artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single TEM image statistic, $\sigma(\mathrm{IPR})$ at roughly 165 nm, can rank drug response in the same cell line, with AACOCF3 showing a larger reversal (60%) than MAFP (50%).
Because the metric reflects physical mass-density disorder rather than a specific molecular target, the same protocol could be extended to other cancer types and other drug classes.
The onset of separation between tumorigenic and non-tumorigenic cells near 100 nm suggests a characteristic length scale at which cancer-associated structural disorder becomes measurable.
The near-return of treated cells to NTC-level $\sigma(\mathrm{IPR})$ implies that effective drugs act on the same nanoscale architecture that carcinogenesis disrupts, not merely on cell proliferation.
This approach could provide a quantitative endpoint for early drug screening using only a handful of TEM images per condition.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

One testable extension would be a dose-response series with several drug concentrations; if the metric is truly tracking efficacy, $\sigma(\mathrm{IPR})$ should reverse monotonically with dose rather than simply showing a binary drug/no-drug effect.
A natural control for the linearity assumption would be to image the same cell block at different section thicknesses or stain concentrations; if $\sigma(\mathrm{IPR})$ shifts with imaging parameters, the biomarker would need recalibration rather than reflecting pure biology.
The same disorder metric could be paired with transcriptomic or proteomic readouts on matched samples to see whether the nanoscale structural reversal correlates with known molecular markers of apoptosis or proliferation.
The 100 nm onset scale seen in the length-dependent curves raises the hypothesis that the diagnostic power is most robust near the characteristic spacing of chromatin or organelle packing, a possibility that could be tested across different cell types.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one genuinely new thing here is the application: the same group's IPR-based disorder quantification, previously used in cancer progression and alcoholism, is now pointed at drug-treated ovarian cancer cells. The dataset is new, the question is timely, and the qualitative direction—tumorigenic cells show higher sigma(IPR), drug treatment pulls it back toward normal—is consistent with what the technique claims to measure. I also give credit for showing the length-scale dependence in Fig. 2 and for noting that AACOCF3 gives a larger reduction than MAFP, which matches prior biological findings on these drugs. As a proof-of-concept, it is coherent and worth a look.

The soft spots are not minor, though. The headline percentages (70%, 60%, 50%) have no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests. Only 8–10 cells per group is thin. There is no vehicle-treated control, so you cannot separate drug effect from handling or solvent effects. The analysis length scale L = 165 nm was selected, in the authors' own words, to show a prominent difference, which is post hoc and undermines the solidity of the specific numbers. And the heavy-metal staining (OsO4, lead citrate) is a real worry: those stains bind lipids and proteins, and the drugs here are cPLA2 inhibitors that alter lipid metabolism. The asserted linear mapping from TEM intensity to mass density and refractive index (Eqs. 1a–1b) is not calibrated or validated. A modest change in staining affinity or section thickness could shift sigma(IPR) by more than the reported effect. The authors do not address this, nor do they release code or raw images for independent verification.

All that said, the core idea is not junk. The IPR technique has prior published support, and the application to drug response is a reasonable extension. The paper reads as an honest preliminary report; the weakness is in the evidentiary standard, not in the logic. I would not take the 50–70% numbers at face value yet, but I would not dismiss the approach either.

Who gets value from this? Someone working on label-free or image-based biomarkers for early drug response, or a referee who wants to see what needs to be done next: more cells, blinded analysis, a vehicle control, a calibration of intensity to mass density, and a pre-specified length scale or a robust averaging over scales. It deserves a serious referee, but only with the expectation of major revision. My call: send it out, and tell the authors to come back with statistics and controls.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the standard deviation of the inverse participation ratio, σ(IPR), computed from TEM images of thin cell sections, is a quantitative biomarker of nanoscale structural disorder in ovarian cancer cells. Using two OV202 variants (non-tumorigenic NTC and tumorigenic HSulf-1-deficient Sh1) and two cPLA2 inhibitors (AACOCF3 and MAFP), the authors report that σ(IPR) increases by 70% from NTC to Sh1 and decreases by about 60% (AACOCF3) and 50% (MAFP) after drug treatment, concluding that drug effectiveness can be quantified from TEM-derived structural disorder.

Significance. If the claims were fully validated, the approach would offer a label-free (in the sense of not requiring molecular probes) quantitative readout of early drug response from ultrastructural TEM data, which would be clinically and biologically useful. The manuscript also has strengths: it makes the computational pipeline explicit (Eqs. 1–4), ties the IPR metric to a prior published body of work ([1,2,5]), and states the model relationships (mass density, refractive index, optical potential) clearly enough to be examined. The qualitative direction of the reported effect—greater disorder in tumorigenic cells and reduced disorder after treatment—is plausible and consistent with earlier IPR-based studies. However, the paper's central quantitative claims are not yet supported by the evidence as presented.

major comments (4)

[Section IV, Fig. 3] The central quantitative claims—70% increase for Sh1, 60% and 50% reductions for AACOCF3 and MAFP—are presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The text reports that ~8–10 cells per group were imaged, but the spread across cells is not shown, so the reader cannot assess whether the reported differences are larger than cell-to-cell variability. The authors should provide per-cell σ(IPR) distributions, standard errors, and an appropriate statistical test (e.g., t-test or Mann–Whitney U) for each pairwise comparison.
[Section III and Eq. (2)] The load-bearing assumption that TEM pixel intensity is linearly proportional to mass density and refractive index (Eqs. 1a–1b, Eq. 2) is not calibrated or validated in this manuscript. Moreover, Section III states that sections were post-stained with OsO4 and lead citrate, so the measured contrast depends on heavy-metal binding to lipids and proteins rather than intrinsic mass density. Because the IPR computation involves nonlinear Hamiltonian diagonalization, a modest staining or thickness artifact could shift σ(IPR) by more than the reported 50–70%. Since AACOCF3 and MAFP target lipid metabolism (Refs. 14 and 20), the drugs could alter stain uptake without altering structural disorder. The authors need a control experiment (e.g., vehicle-treated Sh1 cells, or validation against an independent measure of mass-density disorder such as scanning transmission electron microscopy or quantitative phase imaging) to rule out this confound.
[Section IV, Fig. 2] The analysis length scale L = 165 nm appears to be selected post hoc: the text says 'we have chosen 165nm to show a prominent difference' after noting that deviations start around 100 nm. Because the reported percentages are taken at this single scale, the claim of quantitative biomarker status is vulnerable to selection bias. The authors should either pre-specify the analysis length scale, report results across all scales with appropriate multiple-comparison correction, or demonstrate that the ordering of the four groups is stable over a range of L.
[Section III: Sample Preparation] There is no vehicle-treated control group. The Sh1 cells are described as treated with 10 µl of drug in the presence of the standard medium, but the effect of the solvent or handling itself on σ(IPR) is not assessed. Without a sham-treated control, the observed reduction in σ(IPR) cannot be attributed specifically to the pharmacological activity of AACOCF3 or MAFP rather than to the treatment procedure alone.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The manuscript has two sections labeled 'IV' (Results and Conclusions); the second should be renumbered 'V'.
[Fig. 1 caption] There is an inconsistency in the spelling of the second drug: the caption reads 'MAPF' while the text uses 'MAFP'; also 'Sh-AACOCF3' and 'Sh1-AACOCF3' are used interchangeably.
[Eq. (4)] The notation E_i is used for eigenfunctions after the Hamiltonian was introduced with eigenvectors |i>; the text should clarify that E_i(x,y) denotes the spatial eigenfunction amplitude in the continuum representation.
[Section II] The sentence after Eq. (4) states that <IPR> is proportional to L_d = dn × l_c, but the definition of dn as 'the std of the all n(x,y) point' appears incomplete; specifying whether dn is the standard deviation of the refractive-index map or of the intensity map would improve reproducibility.
[General] No mention is made of blinding during image analysis or of inter-operator reproducibility; given the small sample size, reporting whether the IPR calculation was performed without knowledge of the group labels would help address potential bias.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IPR values are direct numerical transforms of TEM images, and the mapping to structural disorder is inherited from prior external work, not fitted to the present data.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, <IPR> and σ(IPR), are computed by a fixed algorithm from the TEM intensity matrix: Eqs. (1)–(4) define the optical potential ε_i and the Anderson tight-binding Hamiltonian, and Eq. (4) defines IPR from the eigenfunctions. No parameter is fitted to the NTC/Sh1/drug-treated data and then renamed as a prediction. The relation <IPR> ~ L_d = d_n × l_c is taken from earlier published work (Refs. [1,2]) rather than derived from, or fitted to, the current measurements; those prior studies used different cell lines and thus provide external support outside the present fitted values. The comparisons between OV202 NTC, Sh1, Sh1-AACOCF3, and Sh1-MAFP are direct measurements, not outputs of a model calibrated on the same data. The post-hoc choice of L = 165 nm is disclosed in the text ('we have chosen 165nm to show a prominent difference'), and the paper also shows the length-scale dependence over 41–288 nm; this is a statistical-selection concern, not a circular reduction. The unspecified hopping amplitude t in Eq. (3) leaves a parameterization ambiguity but does not make any equation equal to another by construction. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain or to an input definition. Accordingly, no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the IPR-to-disorder mapping inherited from earlier papers, the linear TEM intensity-to-density assumption, and the attribution of observed IPR changes to drug efficacy. The only numerical quantity chosen by the authors is the analysis length scale, selected post hoc; the tight-binding hopping amplitude t is left unspecified. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Analysis length scale L = 165 nm
Chosen post hoc because the text says 'we have chosen 165nm to show a prominent difference'; it was not pre-specified, and the reported percentages depend on this choice.
Tight-binding hopping amplitude t = not specified
Eq. (3) includes t but the paper never states its value or normalization. IPR values depend on the ratio t/epsilon, so the absolute disorder values and potentially the comparisons depend on this unstated constant.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption TEM image intensity is linearly proportional to local mass density and refractive index (ITEM proportional to M proportional to n, Eqs. 1a-1b).
Load-bearing mapping from imaging contrast to physical density; no calibration or validation is provided in the paper.
domain assumption Refractive index fluctuations epsilon_i = dn/n0 can be used as site potentials in an Anderson tight-binding Hamiltonian (Eqs. 2-3).
Borrowed from prior IPR papers; assumes weak scattering and thin-section validity without demonstration here.
domain assumption The average inverse participation ratio <IPR> and sigma(IPR) are proportional to the structural disorder strength Ld = dn times lc.
Taken from refs [1,2]; not re-derived or independently validated in this paper.
domain assumption Changes in sigma(IPR) after drug treatment are attributable to the anti-cancer effect of the drugs rather than general toxicity, fixation, or imaging variability.
No vehicle-treated control or toxicity readout is included, so this attribution is assumed.
standard math Anderson localization theory and the inverse participation ratio as a measure of eigenfunction localization are valid physics for this system.
Used to justify the Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) and IPR in Eq. (4); standard physics background, not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to assess anti-cancerous drug effectiveness in cancer treatment using TEM imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SCMPMP3

@misc{pith2026190902665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to assess anti-cancerous drug effectiveness in cancer treatment using TEM imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SCMPMP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02665}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding the nanoscale structural changes can provide the physical state of cells/tissues. It has been now shown that increases in nanoscale structural alterations are associated with the progress of carcinogenesis in most of the cancer cases, including early carcinogenesis. Anti-cancerous therapies are intended for the growth inhibition of cancer cells; however, it is challenging to detect the efficacy of such drugs in early stages of treatment. A unique method to assess the impact of anti-cancerous drugs on cancerous cells/tissues is to probe the nanoscale structural alterations. In this paper, we study the effect of different anti-cancerous drugs on ovarian tumorigenic cells, using their nanoscale structural alterations as a biomarker. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging on thin cell sections is performed to obtain their nanoscale structures. The degree of nanoscale structural alterations of tumorigenic cells and anti-cancerous drug treated tumorigenic cells are quantified by using the recently developed inverse participation ratio (IPR) technique. Results show an increase in the degree of nanoscale fluctuations in tumorigenic cells relative to non-tumorigenic cells; then a nearly reverse of the degree of fluctuation of tumorigenic cells to that of non-tumorigenic cells, after the anti-cancerous drugs treatment. These results support that the effect of anti-cancerous drugs in cancer treatment can be quantified by using the degree of nanoscale fluctuations of the cells via TEM imaging. Potential applications of the technique for cancer treatment are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02665 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a)-(d) are the representative TEM images and (a’)-(d’) are their respective IPR images from ovarian cells of the following: non-tumorous (OV202 NTC); tumorous (OV202 Sh1); AACOCF3 treated tumorous Sh1, ShAACOCF3; and MAFP treated tumorous Sh1 Sh1-MAFP. IPR images are distinct from the TEM images. TEM Images IPR Images NTC Sh1 Sh1-AACOCF3 Sh1-MAFP (a) (b) (c) (d) (a’) (b’) (c’) (d’) 2µm 2µm 2µm 2µm [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells

Pradhan, P., Damania, D., Joshi, H.M., Turzhitsky, V., Subramanian, H., Roy, H.K., Taflove, A., Dravid, V.P., Backman, V. Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells. Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 243704 (2010)

work page 2010
[2]

Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations by electron microscopy: probing cellular alteration in early carcinogenesis

Pradhan, P., Damania, D., Joshi, H.M., Turzhitsky, V., Subramanian, H., Roy, H.K., Taflove, A., Dravid, V.P., Backman, V. Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations by electron microscopy: probing cellular alteration in early carcinogenesis. Phys. biol. 8.2, 243704 (2011)

work page 2011
[3]

& Sridhar, S

Pradhan, P. & Sridhar, S. Correlations due to Localization in Quantum Eigenfunctions of Disordered Microwave Cavities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2360–2363 (2000)

work page 2000
[4]

& Sridhar, S

Pradhan, P. & Sridhar, S. From chaos to disorder: Statistics of the eigenfunctions of microwave cavities. Pramana 58, 333–341 (2002)

work page 2002
[5]

Quantitative analysis of nanoscale intranuclear structural alterations in hippocampal cells in chronic alcoholism via transmission electron microscopy imaging

Sahay P, Shukla PK, Ghimire HM, Almabadi HM, Tripathi V, Mohanty SK, Rao R, Pradhan P. Quantitative analysis of nanoscale intranuclear structural alterations in hippocampal cells in chronic alcoholism via transmission electron microscopy imaging. Physical biology. 2017 Mar 1;14(2):026001. 10

work page 2017
[6]

Ghimire HM, Shukla P, Sahay P, Almabadi HM, Tripathi V, Nanoscale intracellular mass- density alteration as a signature of the effect of alcohol on early carcinogenesis: A transmission electron microscopy (TEM) study, arXiv:1512.08593, 2015 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08593)

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[7]

Quantification of photonic localization properties of targeted nuclear mass density variations: Application in cancer‐stage detection

Sahay P, Ganju A, Almabadi HM, Ghimire HM, Yallapu MM, Skalli O, Jaggi M, Chauhan SC, Pradhan P. Quantification of photonic localization properties of targeted nuclear mass density variations: Application in cancer‐stage detection. Journal of biophotonics. 2018 May;11(5):e201700257

work page 2018
[8]

Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to ca ncer detection

Sahay P, Almabadi HM, Ghimire HM, Skalli O, Pradhan P. Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to ca ncer detection. Optics express. 2017 Jun 26;25(13):15428-40

work page 2017

Show all 20 references

[9]

Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018

Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, Gaudet MM, Jemal A, Siegel RL. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2018 Jul;68(4):284-96

2018
[10]

Molecular mechanisms of cisplatin resistance

Galluzzi L, Senovilla L, Vitale I, Michels J, Martins I, Kepp O, Castedo M, Kroemer G. Molecular mechanisms of cisplatin resistance. Oncogene. 2012 Apr;31(15):1869

2012
[11]

p53 mutations associated with aging -related rise in cancer incidence rates

Richardson RB. p53 mutations associated with aging -related rise in cancer incidence rates. Cel l cycle. 2013 Aug 1;12(15):2468-78

2013
[12]

Chemoresistance in ovarian cancer: exploiting cancer stem cell metabolism

Li SS, Ma J, Wong AS. Chemoresistance in ovarian cancer: exploiting cancer stem cell metabolism. Journal of gynecologic oncology. 2017 Dec 11;29(2)

2017
[13]

Epigenetic silencing of HSulf-1 in ovarian cancer: implications in chemoresistance

Staub J, Chien J, Pan Y, Qian X, Narita K, Aletti G, Scheerer M, Roberts LR, Molina J, Shridhar V. Epigenetic silencing of HSulf-1 in ovarian cancer: implications in chemoresistance. Oncogene. 2007 Jul;26(34):4969

2007
[14]

Loss of HSulf-1 promotes altered lipid metabolism in ovarian cancer

Roy D, Mondal S, Wang C, He X, Khurana A, Giri S, Hoffmann R, Jung DB, Kim SH, Chini EN, Periera JC. Loss of HSulf-1 promotes altered lipid metabolism in ovarian cancer. Cancer & metabolism. 2014 Dec;2(1):13

2014
[15]

& Ramakrishnan, T.V

Lee, P.A. & Ramakrishnan, T.V. Disordered electronic systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 287 –337 (1985)

1985
[16]

Scaling theory of localization—Absence of quantum diffusion in two dimensions

Abrahams, E., Anderson, P.W., Licciardello, D.C., & Ramakrishnan, T.V. Scaling theory of localization—Absence of quantum diffusion in two dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 673 –676 (1979). 11

1979
[17]

Localization —theory and experiment

Kramer, B & Mackinnon, A. Localization —theory and experiment. Rep. Prog. Phys. 56, 1469 – 1564 (1993)

1993
[18]

& A ltshuler, B.L

Prigodin, V.N. & A ltshuler, B.L. Long -range spatial correlations of eigenfunctions in quantum disordered systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80:9, 1944 (1998)

1998
[19]

Generalized inverse participation ratio as a possible measure of localization for interacting systems

Murphy NC, Wortis R, Atkinson WA. Generalized inverse participation ratio as a possible measure of localization for interacting systems. Physical Review B. 2011 May 31;83(18):184206

2011
[20]

Loss of HSulf-1: The missing link between autophagy and lipid droplets in ovarian cancer

Roy D, Mondal S, Khurana A, Jung DB, Hoffmann R, He X, Kalogera E, Dierks T, Hammond E, Dredge K, Shridhar V. Loss of HSulf-1: The missing link between autophagy and lipid droplets in ovarian cancer. Scientific reports. 2017 Feb 7:41977

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells

Pradhan, P., Damania, D., Joshi, H.M., Turzhitsky, V., Subramanian, H., Roy, H.K., Taflove, A., Dravid, V.P., Backman, V. Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells. Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 243704 (2010)

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations by electron microscopy: probing cellular alteration in early carcinogenesis

Pradhan, P., Damania, D., Joshi, H.M., Turzhitsky, V., Subramanian, H., Roy, H.K., Taflove, A., Dravid, V.P., Backman, V. Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations by electron microscopy: probing cellular alteration in early carcinogenesis. Phys. biol. 8.2, 243704 (2011)

work page 2011

[3] [3]

& Sridhar, S

Pradhan, P. & Sridhar, S. Correlations due to Localization in Quantum Eigenfunctions of Disordered Microwave Cavities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2360–2363 (2000)

work page 2000

[4] [4]

& Sridhar, S

Pradhan, P. & Sridhar, S. From chaos to disorder: Statistics of the eigenfunctions of microwave cavities. Pramana 58, 333–341 (2002)

work page 2002

[5] [5]

Quantitative analysis of nanoscale intranuclear structural alterations in hippocampal cells in chronic alcoholism via transmission electron microscopy imaging

Sahay P, Shukla PK, Ghimire HM, Almabadi HM, Tripathi V, Mohanty SK, Rao R, Pradhan P. Quantitative analysis of nanoscale intranuclear structural alterations in hippocampal cells in chronic alcoholism via transmission electron microscopy imaging. Physical biology. 2017 Mar 1;14(2):026001. 10

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Ghimire HM, Shukla P, Sahay P, Almabadi HM, Tripathi V, Nanoscale intracellular mass- density alteration as a signature of the effect of alcohol on early carcinogenesis: A transmission electron microscopy (TEM) study, arXiv:1512.08593, 2015 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08593)

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

[7] [7]

Quantification of photonic localization properties of targeted nuclear mass density variations: Application in cancer‐stage detection

Sahay P, Ganju A, Almabadi HM, Ghimire HM, Yallapu MM, Skalli O, Jaggi M, Chauhan SC, Pradhan P. Quantification of photonic localization properties of targeted nuclear mass density variations: Application in cancer‐stage detection. Journal of biophotonics. 2018 May;11(5):e201700257

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to ca ncer detection

Sahay P, Almabadi HM, Ghimire HM, Skalli O, Pradhan P. Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to ca ncer detection. Optics express. 2017 Jun 26;25(13):15428-40

work page 2017