Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 50 references

Frequency Domain Analysis of Dynamic Light Scattering in the Breast Cancer Risk Screening: A Proof of Concept

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-24 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Power spectra of backscattered light differ in shape between normal and abnormal breast tissue from 1 to 160 kHz.

desk verdict Small retrospective study shows spectral shape differences in frequency-domain DLS between 17 normal and 7 pre-diagnosed abnormal breasts, but does not test screening performance. read the letter →

arxiv 2406.17237 v1 submitted 2024-06-25 physics.med-ph

Janeth Fernández-Pinto , Álvaro Gómez-Torrado , David A. Miranda This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph
keywords breastcancerscreeningdynamiclightscatteringpowerspectrumfieldeffectnoninvasivedetectionspectralanalysistissuecharacterizationbackscattering
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

The paper establishes a proof of concept for FEDSA, a method that shines light on breast tissue, collects backscattered signals from two detectors, and computes power spectra to capture frequency contributions tied to the sizes of tissue compounds. These spectra are claimed to change when biochemical alterations occur, and the field effect is said to spread those alterations beyond any single local site. Measurements on alumina and polystyrene particles confirmed that spectra track expected particle sizes, while data from 24 women showed shape differences that yielded 87.5 percent sensitivity and 68.1 percent specificity in ROC analysis, with statistically significant quadrant differences matching prior mammogram and ultrasound findings. The approach is presented as noninvasive, low-cost, and free of ionizing radiation, opening a route to early anomaly detection.

What carries the argument

The power spectrum of the backscattered light signal, which encodes frequency contributions from the sizes of scattering compounds in the tissue.

What would settle it

A larger study measuring women whose tissue status is unknown at the time of FEDSA testing, then confirming or refuting the classifications by subsequent biopsy or long-term clinical follow-up.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the power spectra contain frequency contributions related to the size of tissue compounds, and these contributions change with the biochemical alterations that are amplified by the field effect on tissue. This implies that the initial alterations in the breast are not local. Experiments with particles of known sizes produced spectra consistent with those sizes. In the human cohort the spectra for normal and abnormal tissues differed in shape in the 1-160 kHz band, and ROC analysis plus quadrant-specific statistics supported classification of tissue condition.

Load-bearing premise

The observed spectral shape differences arise specifically from field-effect biochemical alterations rather than from other tissue properties or measurement variables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ROC analysis on the 24-woman cohort indicates 87.5% sensitivity and 68.1% specificity for classifying breast tissue conditions.
  • Statistically significant differences appear in the upper inner right and upper outer left quadrants, consistent with prior mammography and ultrasound diagnoses.
  • The technique requires no ionizing radiation and operates at low cost.
  • Because the field effect is invoked, initial alterations are treated as non-local.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the spectral features remain stable when tested on larger cohorts without pre-selection by imaging, the method could function as a first-line, radiation-free screen before mammography.
  • The same frequency-domain approach might be adapted to other tissues where field effects are suspected, such as in prostate or colon screening.
  • Refinements to the detector geometry or analysis bandwidth could raise specificity above the reported 68 percent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims a proof-of-concept for FEDSA, a dynamic light scattering technique that analyzes power spectra (1-160 kHz) to detect field-effect biochemical alterations for noninvasive breast cancer risk screening. Experiments with alumina/polystyrene particles confirm size-dependent spectra; in 24 women (17 normal, 7 abnormal per prior mammogram/ultrasound), spectral shape differences yield ROC sensitivity 87.5% and specificity 68.1%, with p<0.05 differences in two quadrants consistent with prior diagnoses.

Significance. If the observed spectral differences prove reproducible and attributable to field effects rather than local lesions, the approach could provide a low-cost, non-ionizing adjunct for early risk assessment. The particle validation and quadrant-specific statistical tests are concrete strengths, but the case-control design on pre-diagnosed subjects limits claims about prospective screening utility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and § (human subjects description): The cohort consists of 24 women whose tissue status was already known from prior mammogram or ultrasound (17 normal, 7 abnormal). This is a retrospective case-control discrimination task on labeled data, not a prospective screening evaluation in an asymptomatic population with low prevalence; the reported ROC metrics therefore do not address whether the 1-160 kHz shape differences would be detectable or clinically useful without prior imaging.
  2. [Results] Results (ROC and quadrant analysis): With only 7 abnormal cases and no reported error bars, confidence intervals, or cross-validation details for the ROC (sens. 87.5%, spec. 68.1%), the performance estimates are vulnerable to small-sample bias and post-selection of the two quadrants that reached p<0.05; these issues directly affect the central claim of screening potential.
  3. [Methods] Methods (acquisition and analysis): The frequency range (1-160 kHz) and quadrant selection appear chosen after data inspection; without pre-specified analysis plan or correction for multiple comparisons, the statistical significance in upper-inner-right and upper-outer-left quadrants cannot be taken as independent confirmation of field-effect detection.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Particle experiments] The particle-size experiments are described only qualitatively; quantitative comparison of measured vs. expected cutoff frequencies would strengthen the validation section.
  2. [Analysis software] Notation for power spectra (e.g., normalization, averaging across detectors) is not fully specified, making reproducibility difficult.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful comments highlighting important limitations in study design and analysis. As a proof-of-concept demonstration of detectable spectral differences, we address each point by clarifying scope, acknowledging constraints, and committing to revisions that better reflect the retrospective case-control nature without overstating prospective utility.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and § (human subjects description): The cohort consists of 24 women whose tissue status was already known from prior mammogram or ultrasound (17 normal, 7 abnormal). This is a retrospective case-control discrimination task on labeled data, not a prospective screening evaluation in an asymptomatic population with low prevalence; the reported ROC metrics therefore do not address whether the 1-160 kHz shape differences would be detectable or clinically useful without prior imaging.

    Authors: We agree that the study uses a retrospective case-control design on subjects with tissue status already determined by prior mammogram or ultrasound, and therefore does not evaluate performance in a prospective asymptomatic screening population. The intent was to test whether frequency-domain differences could be observed in known normal versus abnormal cases as a proof-of-concept for field-effect detection. We will revise the abstract and human-subjects description to explicitly label the work as retrospective, state the pre-diagnosed nature of the cohort, and remove or qualify any language suggesting direct applicability to prospective screening. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (ROC and quadrant analysis): With only 7 abnormal cases and no reported error bars, confidence intervals, or cross-validation details for the ROC (sens. 87.5%, spec. 68.1%), the performance estimates are vulnerable to small-sample bias and post-selection of the two quadrants that reached p<0.05; these issues directly affect the central claim of screening potential.

    Authors: The limited number of abnormal cases (n=7) and absence of error bars, confidence intervals, or cross-validation are genuine limitations that restrict the reliability of the reported ROC values. The quadrant comparisons were performed to check consistency with prior imaging diagnoses rather than as a confirmatory test. We will revise the results section to discuss these statistical constraints explicitly, note the exploratory character of the quadrant findings, and avoid framing the metrics as evidence of screening readiness. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods (acquisition and analysis): The frequency range (1-160 kHz) and quadrant selection appear chosen after data inspection; without pre-specified analysis plan or correction for multiple comparisons, the statistical significance in upper-inner-right and upper-outer-left quadrants cannot be taken as independent confirmation of field-effect detection.

    Authors: The 1-160 kHz band was chosen because the particle-size validation experiments (alumina and polystyrene) demonstrated clear size-dependent spectral features within this interval; the range was therefore not selected after inspecting the human data. Quadrant analysis was exploratory and guided by anatomic consistency with the known diagnoses. We accept that a pre-specified plan and multiple-comparison correction would strengthen the statistical interpretation. We will amend the methods to document the particle-based rationale for the frequency band, describe the quadrant analysis as exploratory, and add a statement on the need for pre-specification and correction in subsequent work. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The study contains only 24 subjects with 7 abnormal cases; additional prospective data collection would be required to address questions of performance in an asymptomatic screening population, which cannot be supplied by re-analysis of the existing dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical spectral measurements and statistical tests on labeled data

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental acquisition of power spectra from particle suspensions and from breast tissue in 24 pre-diagnosed subjects, followed by shape comparison, ROC analysis, and quadrant-wise p-value tests. No equations, parameters, or first-principles derivations are presented that reduce by construction to their own inputs; the reported differences and classification metrics are computed from the acquired signals without self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained experimental analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The approach relies on established DLS principles with empirical choice of frequency band for classification.

free parameters (1)
  • Analysis frequency range = 1 to 160 kHz
    Chosen to highlight differences in tissue spectra.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The backscattered light signal's power spectrum reflects the size distribution of scattering particles in the tissue.
    Core assumption from dynamic light scattering theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frequency Domain Analysis of Dynamic Light Scattering in the Breast Cancer Risk Screening: A Proof of Concept." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2406.17237

@misc{pith2026240617237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frequency Domain Analysis of Dynamic Light Scattering in the Breast Cancer Risk Screening: A Proof of Concept},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2406.17237}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2406.17237}
}
abstract

We present a proof of concept for screening breast cancer risk by detecting biochemical alterations in breast tissue using a noninvasive and low-cost technique that uses dynamic light scattering for field effect detection by spectral analysis (FEDSA). This technique consists of a light source that illuminates the tissue, and the backscattering light by the tissue is acquired by two detectors; next, the signal goes to the acquisition system, and then with the designed software the power spectra are calculated. The power spectra contain the frequency contribution related to the size of tissue compounds. These frequency contributions change with the biochemical alterations that are amplified by the field effect on tissue. This implies that the initial alterations in the breast are not local. To test FEDSA, two experiments were performed: the first was with Alumina particles grouped in average sizes of $60-300nm$, $100 - 400nm$ and polystyrene nanoparticles in suspension ($315nm$). The second was with 24 women, 17 of whom had normal tissue and 7 abnormal; abnormalities were previously detected by mammogram or ultrasound. Power spectra were obtained for all particles, in agreement with the particle size. In the case of normal and abnormal tissues, the power spectra of the tissues show differences in the shape of the spectra in the range of 1 to 160 kHz. ROC analysis suggests a possible good sensitivity (87.5\%) and specificity (68.1\%) in classifying breast tissue conditions. Statistical analysis with $p<0.05$ revealed significant differences in two quadrants of the breast, the upper inner right and the upper outer left, which were consistent with previous diagnoses by mammography and ultrasound. This proof of concept opens the possibility of implementing and improving FEDSA in the detection of early anomalies in the breast as a low-cost technique that does not use ionizing radiation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2406.17237 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Emitter and detectors (black box) of the FEDSA system placed on the breast (1). The backscattered light contains signals from nearby cells (2), but due to field effect amplification, it also provides information on the state of internal breast alterations. 1.1. Field Effect Detection by Spectral Analysis (FEDSA) The development of FEDSA technology was inspired by accessing the molecular size distribution by analyzin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FEDSA system utilized for characterizing human breast tissue. The experimental setup includes (1) an illu￾mination and detection system, (2) the breast tissue being measured, (3) a data acquisition system, and (4) a data processing system. nipple to the pectoral in a young woman is on average 21𝑐𝑚 [30]. 1.2. Brownian Movement and Light Scattering Based on the hypothesis that biochemical abnormalities caused by abnor… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. For the measurement process, the breast is divided into eight quadrants, four in each breast: Upper-Outer (UOQ), Upper-Inner (UIQ), Lower-Outer (LOQ), and Lower-Inner (LIQ). All participants rested for 15 minutes before measure￾ments, during which informed consent was explained and personal data was collected. The measurement process was conducted as follows: • First: A health professional divided the breast of each… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Procedure for calculating the Power Spectrum: In Step 1, the voltage signal 𝑥(𝑡) is divided into 𝑚 windows, and the digital version of each 𝑥𝑖 (𝑡) signal contains an equal number 𝑛 of data points. Step 2 involves vertically arranging these 𝑚 windows to form a matrix, r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images used to determine the sizes of the Alumina particles. The image corresponds to the nanoparticles in powder form before being sonicated to separate them for the experiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Biological signals recorded with FEDSA from participants with (a) normal breast tissue, and (b) with breast abnormalities. In Step 1, data was captured from each sensor (D1 and D2) along with their analog difference (Dif). Step 2 involved organizing the data appropriat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ROC curve for the logistic regression predicted variable 𝔭𝑘 , as defined by Eq. (9), with a cutoff of 0.1905. The curve demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.88 and a 1-specificity of 0.32. The area under the curve (AUC) is calculated to be 0.83. randomly selected instances …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. Sung, J. Ferlay, R. L. Siegel, M. Laversanne, I. Soerjomataram, A. Jemal, F. Bray, Global cancer statistics 2020: Globocan estimates ofincidenceandmortalityworldwidefor36cancersin185countries, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 71 (2021) 209–249

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Buskwofie, G

    A. Buskwofie, G. David-West, C. A. Clare, A review of cervical cancer: incidence and disparities, Journal of the National Medical Association 112 (2020) 229–232

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    M. A. Aldhaeebi, K. Alzoubi, T. S. Almoneef, S. M. Bamatraf, H. Attia, O. M. Ramahi, Review of microwaves techniques for breast cancer detection, Sensors 20 (2020) 2390

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    U. M. Pal, M. Saxena, G. Anil Vishnu, D. Parsana, B. Sarvani, M. Varma, M. Jayachandra, V. Kurpad, D. Baruah, G. Gogoi, et al., Optical spectroscopy-based imaging techniques for the diagnosis of breast cancer: A novel approach, Applied Spectroscopy Reviews 55 (2020) 778–804

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    PMID: 30691370

    C.K.Kuhl, Abbreviatedmagneticresonanceimaging(mri)forbreast cancerscreening:Rationale,concept,andtransfertoclinicalpractice, Annual Review of Medicine 70 (2019) 501–519. PMID: 30691370

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    M.D.,V.Backman,High-speedspectralnanocytologyforearlycancer screening, Journal of Biomedical Optics 18 (2013) 117002

    J.E.Chandler,H.Subramanian,C.D.Maneval,C.A.White,R.M.L. M.D.,V.Backman,High-speedspectralnanocytologyforearlycancer screening, Journal of Biomedical Optics 18 (2013) 117002

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    J. C. Gómez-Cortés, J. J. Díaz-Carmona, J. A. Padilla-Medina, A. E. Calderon, A. I. B. Gutiérrez, M. Gutiérrez-López, J. Prado-Olivarez, Electrical impedance tomography technical contributions for detec- tion and 3d geometric localization of breast tumors: A systematic review, Micromachines 13 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    X. Chen, J. Gole, A. Gore, Q. He, M. Lu, J. Min, Z. Yuan, X. Yang, Y. Jiang, T. Zhang, et al., Non-invasive early detection of cancer four years before conventional diagnosis using a blood test, Nature communications 11 (2020) 1–10

    work page 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    L. Lin, P. Hu, X. Tong, S. Na, R. Cao, X. Yuan, D. C. Garrett, J. Shi, K.Maslov,L.V.Wang, High-speedthree-dimensionalphotoacoustic computedtomographyforpreclinicalresearchandclinicaltranslation, Nature communications 12 (2021) 1–10

    2021

  2. [10]

    V. L. Mango, O. Olasehinde, A. D. Omisore, F. O. Wuraola, O. C. Famurewa,V.Sevilimedu,G.C.Knapp,E.Steinberg,P.R.Akinmaye, B. D. Adewoyin, et al., The ibreastexam versus clinical breast exam- ination for breast evaluation in high risk and symptomatic nigerian women: a prospecti...

    2022

  3. [11]

    N. A. Labib, M. M. Ghobashi, M. M. Moneer, M. H. Helal, S. A. Abdalgaleel, Evaluation of breastlight as a tool for early detection of breast lesions among females attending national cancer institute, cairouniversity, AsianPacificJournalofCancerPrevention14(2013) 4647–4650

    2013

  4. [12]

    A.J.Radosevich,N.N.Mutyal,J.Yi,Y.Stypula-Cyrus,J.D.Rogers, M.J.Goldberg,L.Bianchi,S.Bajaj,H.K.Roy, Ultrastructuralalter- ations in field carcinogenesis measured by enhanced backscattering spectroscopy, Journal of biomedical optics 18 (2013) 097002

    2013

  5. [13]

    K.Curtius,N.A.Wright,T.A.Graham, Anevolutionaryperspective on field cancerization, Nature Reviews Cancer 18 (2018) 19

    2018

  6. [14]

    H. K. Roy, T. Hensing, V. Backman, Nanocytology for field carcino- genesis detection: novel paradigm for lung cancer risk stratification, Future Oncology 7 (2011) 1–3. PMID: 21174531

    2011

  7. [15]

    Backman, H

    V. Backman, H. K. Roy, Light-scattering technologies for field carcinogenesis detection: a modality for endoscopic prescreening, Gastroenterology 140 (2011) 35–41

    2011

  8. [16]

    field cancerization

    D. P. Slaughter, H. W. Southwick, W. Smejkal, “field cancerization” in oral stratified squamous epithelium. clinical implications of multi- centric origin, Cancer 6 (1953) 963–968

    1953

  9. [17]

    J. F. P, S. C. Méndez-Sánchez, C. Gonzalez-Correa, D. A. Miranda, Could field cancerization be interpreted as a biochemical anomaly Fernández, Gómez and Miranda:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 11 of 12 FEDSA: DLS in the Breast Cancer Screening amplification due to transfor...

    2016

  10. [18]

    D. A. Miranda, S. Pertuz, Field cancerization in the understanding of parenchymal analysis of mammograms for breast cancer risk assessment, Medical Hypotheses 136 (2020) 109511

    2020

  11. [19]

    Saslow, C

    D. Saslow, C. Boetes, W. Burke, S. Harms, M. O. Leach, C. D. Lehman, E. Morris, E. Pisano, M. Schnall, S. Sener, R. A. Smith, E.Warner,M.Yaffe,K.S.Andrews,C.A.Russell, AmericanCancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography, CA: A Cancer Jo...

    2007

  12. [20]

    M. L. Giger, N. Karssemeijer, J. Schnabel, Breast image analysis for riskassessment,detection,diagnosis,andtreatmentofcancer,Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 15 (2013) 327–357

    2013

  13. [21]

    Tosteson, M

    T.Onega,E.F.Beaber,B.L.Sprague,W.E.Barlow,J.S.Haas,A.N. Tosteson, M. D. Schnall, K. Armstrong, M. M. Schapira, B. Geller, D. L. Weaver, E. F. Conant, Breast Cancer Screening in an Era of Personalized Regimens: A Conceptual Model and National Cancer Institute Initiative for Ris...

    2014

  14. [22]

    B. M. Vilmun, I. Vejborg, E. Lynge, M. Lillholm, M. Nielsen, M. B. Nielsen,J.F.Carlsen, Impactofaddingbreastdensitytobreastcancer riskmodels:Asystematicreview, EuropeanJournalofRadiology127 (2020) 109019

    2020

  15. [23]

    Hernández, D

    A. Hernández, D. A. Miranda, S. Pertuz, An in silico study on the detectability of field cancerization through parenchymal analysis of digital mammograms, Medical Physics (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J.F.P,D.A.Miranda,Methodanddevicetodetectabonormalitiesin biological cells, colombia patent, April 7, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    B. C. McCleskey, T. L. Penedo, K. Zhang, O. Hameed, G. P. Siegal, S.Wei, Gata3expressioninadvancedbreastcancer:prognosticvalue and organ-specific relapse, American journal of clinical pathology 144 (2015) 756–763

    2015

  18. [26]

    R. R. Anderson, J. A. Parrish, The optics of human skin, Journal of investigative dermatology 77 (1981) 13–19

    1981

  19. [27]

    Meglinsky, S

    I. Meglinsky, S. Matcher, Modelling the sampling volume for skin blood oxygenation measurements, Medical and Biological Engineer- ing and Computing 39 (2001) 44–50

    2001

  20. [28]

    M. Doi, S. Tominaga, Spectral estimation of human skin color using the Kubelka-Munk theory, in: R. Eschbach, G. G. Marcu (Eds.), ColorImagingVIII:Processing,Hardcopy,andApplications,volume 5008,InternationalSocietyforOpticsandPhotonics,SPIE,2003,pp. 221–228.URL: https://doi.or...

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    Baranoski, A

    G. Baranoski, A. Krishnaswamy, Simulation of Light Interaction with Human Skin, in: M. Lin, C. Loscos (Eds.), Eurographics 2005 - Tutorials, The Eurographics Association, 2005. doi:10.2312/egt. 20051055

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    R. D. Rehnke, R. M. Groening, E. R. Van Buskirk, J. M. Clarke, Anatomy of the superficial fascia system of the breast: a compre- hensive theory of breast fascial anatomy, Plastic and reconstructive surgery 142 (2018) 1135

    2018

  23. [31]

    D. A. Miranda-Mercado, davidalejandromiranda/fedsa_public: Ex- ploring the breast cancer risk detection by dynamic light scattering,

  24. [32]

    doi:10.5281/ zenodo.8200226

    URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8200226. doi:10.5281/ zenodo.8200226

    doi

  25. [33]

    P. Welch, The use of fast fourier transform for the estimation of powerspectra:Amethodbasedontimeaveragingovershort,modified periodograms, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 15 (1967) 70–73

    1967

  26. [34]

    M.Lalithleelavishnu,M.Ravindranath,S.I.Kumara, Noiseestima- tion and power spectrum analysis using different window techniques, Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IOSR-JEEE) 11 (2017) 33–39

    2017

  27. [35]

    P. E. McKnight, J. Najab, Mann-whitney u test, The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (2010) 1–1

    2010

  28. [36]

    I.Malá,V.Sládek,D.Bílková, Powercomparisonsofnormalitytests based on l-moments and classical tests, Mathematics and Statistics 9 (2021) 994–1003

    2021

  29. [37]

    R.Kubo,M.Toda,N.Hashitsume,R.Kubo,M.Toda,N.Hashitsume, Physical processes as stochastic processes, Springer, 1985. doi:10. 1007/978-3-642-96701-6

    1985

  30. [38]

    D.N.DanforthJr, Genomicchangesinnormalbreasttissueinwomen at normal risk or at high risk for breast cancer, Breast cancer: basic and clinical research 10 (2016) BCBCR–S39384

    2016

  31. [39]

    M.Lunardi,A.Al-Habbaa,M.Abdelshafy,M.G.Davey,A.Elkoumy, S.Ganly,H.Elzomor,C.Cawley,F.Sharif,J.Crowley,etal., Genetic and rna-related molecular markers of trastuzumab-chemotherapy- associated cardiotoxicity in her2 positive breast cancer: a systematic review, BMC cancer 22 (2022) 1–14

    2022

  32. [40]

    Muhammad, G

    A. Muhammad, G. Forcados, B. Katsayal, R. Bako, S. Aminu, I. Sadiq, M. Abubakar, A. Yusuf, I. Malami, M. Faruk, S. Ibrahim, P. Pase, S. Ahmed, I. Abubakar, M. Abubakar, C. Yates, Potential epigenetic modifications implicated in triple- to quadruple-negative breast cancer trans...

    2022

  33. [41]

    S.Joshi,C.Garlapati,R.Aneja, Epigeneticdeterminantsofracialdis- parity in breast cancer: Looking beyond genetic alterations, Cancers 14 (2022) 1903

    2022

  34. [42]

    C.Thakur,Y.Qiu,Y.Fu,Z.Bi,W.Zhang,H.Ji,F.Chen, Epigenetics and environment in breast cancer: New paradigms for anti-cancer therapies, Frontiers in Oncology 12 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Zhang, Molecular classification of breast cancer: Relevance and challenges,ArchivesofPathology&LaboratoryMedicine147(2023) 46–51

    X. Zhang, Molecular classification of breast cancer: Relevance and challenges,ArchivesofPathology&LaboratoryMedicine147(2023) 46–51

    2023

  36. [44]

    Deepak, R

    K. Deepak, R. Vempati, G. P. Nagaraju, V. R. Dasari, S. Nagini, D. Rao, R. R. Malla, Tumor microenvironment: Challenges and opportunities in targeting metastasis of triple negative breast cancer, Pharmacological research 153 (2020) 104683

    2020

  37. [45]

    Legres, C

    J.Lehmann-Che,F.Amira-Bouhidel,E.Turpin,M.Antoine,H.Soli- man, L. Legres, C. Bocquet, R. Bernoud, E. Flandre, M. Varna, etal., Immunohistochemicalandmolecularanalysesofher2statusin breastcancersarehighlyconcordantandcomplementaryapproaches, British journal of cancer 104 (2011)...

    2011

  38. [46]

    Gojis, B

    O. Gojis, B. Rudraraju, M. Gudi, K. Hogben, S. Sousha, C. R. Coombes, S. Cleator, C. Palmieri, The role of src-3 in human breast cancer, Nature reviews Clinical oncology 7 (2010) 83–89

    2010

  39. [47]

    Cerma, F

    K. Cerma, F. Piacentini, L. Moscetti, M. Barbolini, F. Canino, A. Tornincasa, F. Caggia, S. Cerri, A. Molinaro, M. Dominici, et al., Targeting pi3k/akt/mtor pathway in breast cancer: From biology to clinical challenges, Biomedicines 11 (2023) 109

    2023

  40. [48]

    P.A.Hassan,S.Rana,G.Verma, Makingsenseofbrownianmotion: colloid characterization by dynamic light scattering, Langmuir 31 (2015) 3–12

    2015

  41. [49]

    Hall, Guyton and hall textbook of medical physiology e-book: Elsevier health sciences, 2015

    J. Hall, Guyton and hall textbook of medical physiology e-book: Elsevier health sciences, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    V. V. Tuchin, Tissue optics and photonics: light-tissue interaction, Journal of Biomedical Photonics & Engineering 1 (2015) 98–134. Fernández, Gómez and Miranda:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 12 of 12

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed May 24, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.