Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Photonics detection of molecular-specific spatial structural alterations in cell nuclei due to chronic alcoholism and probiotics treatments on colon cancer via a light localization method using confocal imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · 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 inverse participation ratio from confocal micrographs quantifies molecular-specific nanoscale nuclear disorder, rising with chronic alcohol and colon cancer and falling when probiotics are added.

desk verdict A new application of an established IPR method with a consistent biological signal, but two load-bearing issues — a Ki-67/H3K27me3 staining mix-up and an unestablished IPR-to-disorder calibration — mean the claims as written are not reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20063 v1 pith:UFO3RLF2 submitted 2024-12-28 physics.med-ph physics.bio-phphysics.optics

Ishmael Apachigawo , Dhruvil Solanki , Santanu Maity , Pradeep Shukla , Radhakrishna Rao , Prabhakar Pradhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.bio-phphysics.optics
keywords inverseparticipationratiolightlocalizationconfocalmicroscopycoloncancerchronicalcoholismprobioticsnuclearstructuraldisordernanoscalebiomarkers
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 tries to establish that a light-localization metric, the inverse participation ratio (IPR), computed from confocal micrographs, can quantify molecular-specific nanoscale structural disorder in cell nuclei. Applied to a mouse colon-cancer model, the metric increases when mice are fed alcohol and when cancer is induced by AOM/DSS, and decreases when the probiotic L. Casei is added to the alcohol-fed cancer group. The same ordering holds for three separately stained nuclear structures: DNA/chromatin (DAPI), cytoskeleton F-actin (phalloidin), and Ki-67 proliferation-associated cells (stained with H3K27me3). If correct, Ld-IPR offers a single-number biomarker for early alcohol- and cancer-driven structural change and for probiotic mitigation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inverse participation ratio (IPR), computed from eigenfunctions of a two-dimensional tight-binding Hamiltonian whose site potentials are the fluctuating confocal pixel intensities, treated as proportional to local refractive-index and mass-density fluctuations. Averaging IPR over eigenfunctions on L by L patches gives the disorder strength Ld-IPR, which grows as the product of refractive-index fluctuation strength and correlation length. This turns a confocal fluorescence image into a single number that the paper uses as the biomarker.

What would settle it

Compare IPR maps from serial colon sections stained with a validated anti-Ki-67 antibody versus the H3K27me3 stain used in this paper; if the spatial patterns and group rankings diverge, the Ki-67 conclusions are an artifact of stain choice. In parallel, measure refractive-index maps of the same fields with tomographic phase microscopy and correlate them with confocal intensities; a weak correlation would break the linearity assumption behind the paper's equations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the degree of light localization in a disordered optical lattice built from confocal pixel intensities, quantified by the inverse participation ratio (Ld-IPR), is proportional to nanoscale refractive-index and mass-density fluctuations and therefore reports the structural disorder of the stained molecule. On five mouse groups (pair-fed control, ethanol-fed, AOM/DSS cancer, AOM/DSS plus ethanol, and AOM/DSS plus ethanol plus probiotic), the paper reports the highest mean and fluctuation of Ld-IPR for the alcohol-fed cancer group (for Ki-67, 5.30 and 0.89), with probiotic treatment lowering the mean by 24% and the standard deviation by 42%. The same qualitative pattern appears for chromatin and cytoskeleton, and the paper interprets these increases as alcohol-enhanced carcinogenesis and the decreases as partial reversal toward normal by L. Casei.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes confocal pixel intensity is linearly proportional to the stained molecule's mass-density and refractive-index fluctuations, and that the H3K27me3 stain is specific to Ki-67 cells.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ld-IPR from confocal micrographs could serve as a quantitative readout of early, nanoscale structural change that ordinary microscopy cannot resolve.
  • Chronic alcohol consumption alone increases nuclear structural disorder in DNA/chromatin, cytoskeleton, and Ki-67 compartments, supporting alcohol as a structural promoter of colon carcinogenesis.
  • In the AOM/DSS cancer model, adding ethanol raises Ld-IPR above the cancer-only level, indicating alcohol-intensified disorganization.
  • Adding L. Casei to the alcohol-fed cancer group lowers both the mean and fluctuation of Ld-IPR toward control values, evidence of partial structural reversal.
  • The pattern is consistent across all three molecular stains, so the effect is not confined to a single nuclear compartment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the Ki-67 channel would be to compare IPR maps from a validated anti-Ki-67 antibody with the H3K27me3 stain used here; if the maps mark different cell populations, the reported Ki-67-specific effect sizes would need re-scoping.
  • The intensity-to-refractive-index proportionality is assumed rather than measured; adding tomographic phase microscopy on the same fields would show whether the reported percentage changes correspond to absolute nanoscale density shifts.
  • Because the technique is dye-agnostic, the same pipeline could be used to ask whether other probiotic strains or lower alcohol doses show the same dose-response ordering of Ld-IPR in inflammation-driven tumor models.
  • The standard-deviation changes in Ld-IPR are often larger than the mean changes, suggesting that spatial heterogeneity of the disorder, not just its average level, may be the more sensitive early-cancer readout.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a tight-binding Anderson localization model to confocal fluorescence images of colon tissue from five groups of mice (PF, EF, AD, ADE, ADE+LC), computing the inverse participation ratio (IPR) as a measure of 'molecular-specific spatial structural disorder' (Ld-IPR) in DNA/chromatin, cytoskeleton, and Ki-67 cells. The authors report that ethanol increases the mean and standard deviation of IPR in all three stains, that the AOM/DSS cancer model increases these values further, that ethanol combined with the cancer model gives the largest values, and that L.Casei probiotics partially reverse these increases. They conclude that Ld-IPR could serve as a biomarker for early cancer detection and for monitoring probiotic mitigation.

Significance. If the method were validated, the approach would be attractive because the IPR values are computed directly from images without fitting parameters to the group outcomes, and the reported direction of differences is internally consistent across the three markers. The study also addresses a clinically relevant question: whether chronic alcohol consumption enhances colon carcinogenesis and whether probiotics can mitigate that effect. However, the manuscript's central quantitative claim depends on an unproven and dimensionally questionable scaling relation, and one of the three stain targets is identified by an antibody that does not label the stated protein. The significance of the work is therefore contingent on substantial revision and independent validation of the IPR-to-disorder calibration.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) states that ⟨IPR⟩ ~ dn × lc, but this relation is dimensionally inconsistent: the IPR defined in Eq. (5) is dimensionless, whereas dn × lc has units of length (dn is a refractive-index fluctuation and lc is a length). The relation is not derived in this manuscript; it is imported from Refs. [23,26–28]. For the 2D tight-binding Anderson Hamiltonian in Eq. (4), the IPR of localized eigenstates scales as the inverse localization area and does not reduce to dn × lc without additional assumptions. Because Eq. (7) is the calibration that converts confocal intensity maps into the 'structural disorder strength' Ld-IPR used in every group comparison (Figs. 3, 5, and 7), the central quantitative interpretation is unsupported as stated.
  2. [Methods, Sample Preparation] The text states that 'ki-67 cells were stained with H3K27me3.' H3K27me3 is a histone post-translational modification that marks repressed chromatin, not the Ki-67 proliferation protein, and no antibody validation or double-labeling protocol is supplied. Consequently, the Ki-67-specific results in Figs. 4–5 and the related conclusions about proliferation do not follow from the data. This issue cannot be repaired for the already-collected images.
  3. [Results, Figs. 3, 5, 7] The statistical support is not verifiable. The text repeatedly says 'Student's t-test p-values < 0.05' but reports no p-values, test statistics, sample sizes per group, or corrections for the multiple comparisons across three markers and five groups. With 15 group-pair comparisons, uncorrected t-tests are inadequate to support the claimed significance of the Ld-IPR differences.
  4. [Methods, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The linear proportionality I(x,y) ∝ ρ(x,y) ∝ n(x,y) is asserted without calibration. Confocal fluorescence intensity depends on fluorophore concentration, labeling efficiency, and the microscope point-spread function, not solely on mass density or refractive index. Since the optical potential ε_i in Eq. (3) is constructed from this proportionality, the mapping from images to disorder is not established. The manuscript should either validate this relation with control experiments or clearly present the IPR as a model-dependent image statistic rather than a direct measure of refractive-index disorder.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains an incomplete sentence ('which is a 15% and 14%he bar graph shows...') and should be rewritten for clarity.
  2. [Eqs. (5)–(6)] The notation for IPR is inconsistent: Eq. (5) defines IPR as an integral of |E(r)|^4, while Eq. (6) includes a factor 1/N and integrations over an L×L area. The precise definition of the ensemble average and the normalization should be stated once, with consistent notation.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The hopping parameter t is never assigned a value or discussed; the sensitivity of ⟨IPR⟩ to t should be addressed.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: Ref. [27] duplicates Ref. [18], Ref. [28] duplicates Ref. [3], and Ref. [34] duplicates Ref. [25].
  5. [Methods/Sample Preparation] The group abbreviations (PF, EF, AD, ADE, ADE+LC) are used in the Results but are defined only there; they should be introduced in the Methods section.
  6. [Fig. 8 caption] The phrase 'The x-axis steps are false steps that are at an equal distance of unit 1 for each group' is confusing and should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IPR values are computed directly from confocal images; the only self-referential element is the imported calibration of IPR as structural disorder, which is a validation concern rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical results are the ensemble-averaged IPR values computed from confocal micrographs via the Anderson tight-binding Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) and the IPR definition (Eq. 5). No parameter is fitted to the five group outcomes, and no normalization is chosen to force the reported ordering PF < EF < AD < ADE > ADE+LC. The group comparisons in Figs. 3, 5, and 7 are therefore direct measurements, not predictions from fitted inputs. The interpretive step is Eq. (7), which relates <IPR> to dn × l_c and labels this as structural disorder Ld-IPR. This calibration is imported from prior work, partly by the same authors (Refs. 23, 26-28), rather than derived in this manuscript. That makes the biomarker interpretation dependent on an external validity assumption, and the 'ki-67 cells were stained with H3K27me3' statement is an additional correctness concern. However, neither of these issues is a circularity in the sense of Eq. X reducing to Eq. Y by construction: the IPR values themselves are not defined in terms of the group labels or outcomes, and the prior calibration is not re-derived from the present data. The measurement chain is self-contained, with only a non-circular reliance on a previously published method.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions; Ld-IPR is a derived metric, not an invented entity. The central claim rests on imported assumptions about intensity-to-density mapping, the tight-binding model, the IPR scaling relation, and the specificity of the stains, plus two unstated numerical parameters (L and t).

free parameters (2)
  • IPR analysis length scale L = 0.8 µm
    The analysis fixes L = 0.8 µm for all cell nuclei; no scan or justification is given, and IPR values can depend on this window size.
  • Tight-binding hopping parameter t = not specified
    Eq. (4) introduces the nearest-neighbor hopping t, whose numerical value is never given; IPR depends on the ratio of potential to hopping, so this is an unstated free parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fluorescence intensity I(x,y) is linearly proportional to local mass density rho and refractive index n (Eqs. 1-2).
    This linearity is the basis for converting pixel intensities into an optical potential; it is an assumption, not measured here.
  • domain assumption The optical potential epsilon_i = dn/n0 is proportional to dI/I0 (Eq. 3) and represents the disorder relevant for light localization.
    Used without validation in this specific biological system; the mapping is imported from previous work.
  • domain assumption The Anderson tight-binding Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor hopping describes light propagation in the stained tissue lattice (Eq. 4).
    The mapping from biological tissue to an electronic tight-binding model is a modeling assumption that is not tested here.
  • domain assumption The averaged IPR is proportional to dn*lc (Eq. 7).
    The asserted scaling relation is taken from self-cited references, not derived or independently tested in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper H3K27me3 staining specifically labels Ki-67 cells.
    Methods state that Ki-67 cells were stained with H3K27me3, but H3K27me3 is a histone modification, not the Ki-67 protein; no supporting reference is given.
  • domain assumption Micrographs from the same mouse can be treated as independent statistical samples.
    The paper reports at least 25 micrographs per category but does not account for clustering by mouse, which can inflate statistical significance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photonics detection of molecular-specific spatial structural alterations in cell nuclei due to chronic alcoholism and probiotics treatments on colon cancer via a light localization method using confocal imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UFO3RLF2

@misc{pith2026241220063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photonics detection of molecular-specific spatial structural alterations in cell nuclei due to chronic alcoholism and probiotics treatments on colon cancer via a light localization method using confocal imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UFO3RLF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20063}
}
read the original abstract

Photonics/light localization techniques are important in understanding the structural changes in biological tissues at the nano- to sub-micron scale. It is now known that structural alteration starts at the nanoscale at the beginning of cancer progression. This study examines the molecular-specific nano-structural alterations of chronic alcoholism and probiotic effects on colon cancer using a mouse model of colon cancer. Confocal microscopy and mesoscopic light-scattering analysis are applied to quantify structural changes in DNA (chromatin), cytoskeleton, and ki-67 protein cells with appropriate staining dyes. We assessed alcohol-treated and azoxymethane (AOM) with dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced colitis models, including ethanol (EtOH) and probiotic (L.Casei) treatments separately and together. The inverse participation ratio (IPR) technique was employed to quantify the degree of light localization to access the molecular-specific spatial structural disorder as a biomarker for cancer progression detection. Significant enhancement of cancer progression was observed in the alcohol-treated group, and probiotics treatment with alcohol showed partial reversal of these changes in colon cancer. The results underscore the potential of the IPR technique in detecting early structural changes in colon cancer, offering insights into the mitigating effects of probiotics on alcohol-induced enhancement of colon cancer.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cell refractive index for cell biology and disease diagnosis: past, present and future,

    P. Y . Liu, L. K. Chin, W. Ser, H. F. Chen, C.-M. Hsieh, C.-H. Lee, K.-B. Sung, T. C. Ayi, P. H. Yap, B. Liedberg, K. Wang, T. Bourouina, and Y . Leprince-Wang, "Cell refractive index for cell biology and disease diagnosis: past, present and future," Lab Chip 16(4), 634–644 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    The spatial variation of the refractive index in biological cells,

    J. Beuthan, O. Minet, J. Helfmann, M. Herrig, and G. Müller, "The spatial variation of the refractive index in biological cells," Phys. Med. Biol. 41(3), 369 (1996)

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to cancer detection,

    P. Sahay, H. M. Almabadi, H. M. Ghimire, O. Skalli, and P. Pradhan, "Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to cancer detection," Opt. Express, OE 25(13), 15428–15440 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Identification of malignancy-associated change in buccal mucosa with partial wave spectroscopy (PWS): A potential biomarker for lung cancer risk,

    T. A. Hensing, H. Subramanian, H. K. Roy, D. Breault, Z. Bogojevic, D. Ray, N. Hasabou, and V . Backman, "Identification of malignancy-associated change in buccal mucosa with partial wave spectroscopy (PWS): A potential biomarker for lung cancer risk," JCO 26(15_suppl), 11045– 11045 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Numerical study of the degree of light scattering strength versus fractal dimension in strong to weak 2D and 3D disordered fractal optical media,

    E. Avery, S. Nanda, B. Regmi, P. Sahay, and P. Pradhan, "Numerical study of the degree of light scattering strength versus fractal dimension in strong to weak 2D and 3D disordered fractal optical media," OSA Continuum, OSAC 3(4), 844–853 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Fractal Dimension Analyses to Detect Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases Using Their Thin Brain Tissue Samples via Transmission Optical Microscopy,

    I. Apachigawo, D. Solanki, R. Tate, H. Singh, M. M. Khan, and P. Pradhan, "Fractal Dimension Analyses to Detect Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases Using Their Thin Brain Tissue Samples via Transmission Optical Microscopy," Biophysica 3(4), 569–581 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Optical detection of the structural properties of tumor tissue generated by xenografting of drug- sensitive and drug-resistant cancer cells using partial wave spectroscopy (PWS),

    P. Adhikari, P. K. B. Nagesh, F. Alharthi, S. C. Chauhan, M. Jaggi, M. M. Yallapu, and P. Pradhan, "Optical detection of the structural properties of tumor tissue generated by xenografting of drug- sensitive and drug-resistant cancer cells using partial wave spectroscopy (PWS)," Biomed. Opt. Express, BOE 10(12), 6422–6431 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Current and Future Advancements of Raman Spectroscopy Techniques in Cancer Nanomedicine,

    E. Canetta, "Current and Future Advancements of Raman Spectroscopy Techniques in Cancer Nanomedicine," IJMS 22(23), 13141 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Partial-wave microscopic spectroscopy detects subwavelength refractive index fluctuations: an application to cancer diagnosis,

    H. Subramanian, P. Pradhan, Y . Liu, I. R. Capoglu, J. D. Rogers, H. K. Roy, R. E. Brand, and V . Backman, "Partial-wave microscopic spectroscopy detects subwavelength refractive index fluctuations: an application to cancer diagnosis," Opt. Lett. 34(4), 518 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Optical Probing of Nanostructural Alterations of Brain Tissues by Partial Wave Spectroscopy in Chronic Alcoholism,

    P. Adhikari, P. K. Shukla, F. Alharthi, B. Regmi, R. Rao, and P. Pradhan, "Optical Probing of Nanostructural Alterations of Brain Tissues by Partial Wave Spectroscopy in Chronic Alcoholism," in 2020 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO) (2020), pp. 1–2

    2020

  3. [11]

    Alcohol consumption and colon cancer prognosis among participants in north central cancer treatment group phase III trial N0147,

    A. I. Phipps, Q. Shi, P. J. Limburg, G. D. Nelson, D. J. Sargent, F. A. Sinicrope, E. Chan, S. Gill, R. M. Goldberg, M. Kahlenberg, S. Nair, A. F. Shields, P. A. Newcomb, S. R. Alberts, and for the A. for C. T. in Oncology, "Alcohol consumption and colon cancer prognosis among...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Tobacco, Alcohol, and Colorectal Tumors: A Multistep Process,

    M.-C. Boutron, J. Faivre, M.-C. Dop, V . Quipourt, and P. Senesse, "Tobacco, Alcohol, and Colorectal Tumors: A Multistep Process," American Journal of Epidemiology 141(11), 1038– 1046 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    Alcohol consumption and the etiology of colorectal cancer: A review of the scientific evidence from 1957 to 1991,

    G. A. Kune and L. Vitetta, "Alcohol consumption and the etiology of colorectal cancer: A review of the scientific evidence from 1957 to 1991," Nutrition and Cancer 18(2), 97–111 (1992)

    1992

  6. [14]

    Kasai, K

    C. Kasai, K. Sugimoto, I. Moritani, J. Tanaka, Y . Oya, H. Inoue, M. Tameda, K. Shiraki, M. Ito, Y . Takei, and K. Takase, "Comparison of human gut microbiota in control subjects and patients with colorectal carcinoma in adenoma: Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphi...

    2016

  7. [15]

    Alcohol consumption and cancer of the gastrointestinal tract,

    M. P. Salaspuro, "Alcohol consumption and cancer of the gastrointestinal tract," Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 17(4), 679–694 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    "Effect of Chronic Dietary Ethanol Consumption on Colonic Cancer in Rats Induced by 1,1‐ Dimethylhydrazine - Hayashi - 2007 - Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research - Wiley Online Library," https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530- 0277.2006.00290.x?casa...

    2007

  9. [17]

    Ethanol-Induced Mast Cell-Mediated Inflammation Leads to Increased Susceptibility of Intestinal Tumorigenesis in the APCΔ468 Min Mouse Model of Colon Cancer,

    A. L. Wimberly, C. B. Forsyth, M. W. Khan, A. Pemberton, K. Khazaie, and A. Keshavarzian, "Ethanol-Induced Mast Cell-Mediated Inflammation Leads to Increased Susceptibility of Intestinal Tumorigenesis in the APCΔ468 Min Mouse Model of Colon Cancer," Alcoholism: Clinical and Ex...

    2013

  10. [19]

    Nuclear structural proteins as biomarkers of cancer,

    B. R. Konety and R. H. Getzenberg, "Nuclear structural proteins as biomarkers of cancer," Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 75(S32), 183–191 (1999)

    1999

  11. [20]

    Nuclear structure in cancer cells,

    D. Zink, A. Fischer, and J. Nickerson, "Nuclear structure in cancer cells," Nature reviews. Cancer 4, 677–87 (2004)

    2004

  12. [21]

    The concept of self-organization in cellular architecture,

    T. Misteli, "The concept of self-organization in cellular architecture," J Cell Biol 155(2), 181–186 (2001)

    2001

  13. [22]

    Cancer biomarker detection: recent achievements and challenges,

    L. Wu and X. Qu, "Cancer biomarker detection: recent achievements and challenges," Chemical Society Reviews 44(10), 2963–2997 (2015)

    2015

  14. [23]

    Photonic technique to study the effects of probiotics on chronic alcoholic brain cells by quantifying their molecular specific structural alterations via confocal imaging,

    P. Adhikari, P. K. Shukla, F. Alharthi, R. Rao, and P. Pradhan, "Photonic technique to study the effects of probiotics on chronic alcoholic brain cells by quantifying their molecular specific structural alterations via confocal imaging," Journal of Biophotonics 15(3), e2021002...

    2022

  15. [24]

    Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations by electron microscopy: probing cellular alterations in early carcinogenesis*,

    P. Pradhan, D. Damania, H. M. Joshi, V . Turzhitsky, H. Subramanian, H. K. Roy, A. Taflove, V . P. Dravid, and V . Backman, "Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations by electron microscopy: probing cellular alterations in early carcinogenesis*," Phys. Biol. 8(2), 026012 (2011)

    2011

  16. [25]

    Studying nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to evaluate ovarian cancer drug treatment, using transmission electron microscopy imaging,

    P. Adhikari, M. Hasan, V . Sridhar, D. Roy, and P. Pradhan, "Studying nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to evaluate ovarian cancer drug treatment, using transmission electron microscopy imaging," Phys. Biol. 17(3), 036005 (2020)

    2020

  17. [26]

    Dual Photonics Probing of Nano- to Submicron-Scale Structural Alterations in Human Brain Tissues/Cells and Chromatin/DNA with the Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease,

    F. Alharthi, I. Apachigawo, D. Solanki, S. Khan, H. Singh, M. M. Khan, and P. Pradhan, "Dual Photonics Probing of Nano- to Submicron-Scale Structural Alterations in Human Brain Tissues/Cells and Chromatin/DNA with the Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease," International Journal ...

    2024

  18. [27]

    TEM study of chronic alcoholism effects on early carcinogenesis by probing the nanoscale structural alterations of cell nuclei,

    P. Adhikari, P. K. Shukla, H. M. Ghimire, M. Hasan, P. Sahay, H. Almabadi, V . Tripathi, O. Skalli, R. Rao, and P. Pradhan, "TEM study of chronic alcoholism effects on early carcinogenesis by probing the nanoscale structural alterations of cell nuclei," Phys. Biol. 18(2), 0260...

    2021

  19. [28]

    Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to cancer detection,

    P. Sahay, H. M. Almabadi, H. M. Ghimire, O. Skalli, and P. Pradhan, "Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to cancer detection," Opt. Express 25(13), 15428 (2017)

    2017

  20. [29]

    Transport and Anderson localization in disordered two-dimensional photonic lattices,

    T. Schwartz, G. Bartal, S. Fishman, and M. Segev, "Transport and Anderson localization in disordered two-dimensional photonic lattices," Nature 446(7131), 52–55 (2007)

    2007

  21. [30]

    Tight-binding models and density-functional theory,

    W. M. C. Foulkes and R. Haydock, "Tight-binding models and density-functional theory," Phys. Rev. B 39(17), 12520–12536 (1989)

    1989

  22. [31]

    Strong eigenfunction correlations near the Anderson- localization transition,

    Y . V . Fyodorov and A. D. Mirlin, "Strong eigenfunction correlations near the Anderson- localization transition," Phys. Rev. B 55(24), R16001–R16004 (1997)

    1997

  23. [32]

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

    P. Pradhan, D. Damania, H. M. Joshi, V . Turzhitsky, H. Subramanian, H. K. Roy, A. Taflove, V . P. Dravid, and V . Backman, "Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells," Applied Physics Letters ...

    2010

  24. [33]

    Chronic ethanol feeding promotes azoxymethane and dextran sulfate sodium-induced colonic tumorigenesis potentially by enhancing mucosal inflammation | BMC Cancer,

    "Chronic ethanol feeding promotes azoxymethane and dextran sulfate sodium-induced colonic tumorigenesis potentially by enhancing mucosal inflammation | BMC Cancer," https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12885-016-2180-x

    doi

  25. [34]

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

    P. Adhikari, M. Hasan, V . Sridhar, D. Roy, and P. Pradhan, "Nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to assess anti-cancerous drug effectiveness in ovarian cancer treatment using TEM imaging," Phys Biol 17(3), 036005 (2020)

    2020

  26. [35]

    Ki-67 protein as a tumour proliferation marker,

    S. S. Menon, C. Guruvayoorappan, K. M. Sakthivel, and R. R. Rasmi, "Ki-67 protein as a tumour proliferation marker," Clinica Chimica Acta 491, 39–45 (2019)

    2019

  27. [36]

    Proliferation Marker Ki-67 in Early Breast Cancer | Journal of Clinical Oncology,

    "Proliferation Marker Ki-67 in Early Breast Cancer | Journal of Clinical Oncology," https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.501

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.