The Analytical Scientist
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • News & Research
    • Trends & Challenges
    • Keynote Interviews
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Product Profiles
    • App Notes
    • The Product Book

    Featured Topics

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Topics

    Techniques & Tools

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy
    • Microscopy
    • Sensors
    • Data and AI

    • View All Topics

    Applications & Fields

    • Clinical
    • Environmental
    • Food, Beverage & Agriculture
    • Pharma and Biopharma
    • Omics
    • Forensics
  • People & Profiles

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Sitting Down With
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Business & Education

    Business & Education

    • Innovation
    • Business & Entrepreneurship
    • Career Pathways
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Content Hubs
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Analytical Scientist / Issues / 2026 / October / Reading Skin Cancers Molecular Fingerprint
Spectroscopy Clinical News and Research

Reading Skin Cancer’s Molecular Fingerprint

Machine-learning models analyzed Raman spectra to distinguish cancerous tissue from normal skin

10/06/2026 3 min read

Share

A handheld Raman spectroscopy system combined with machine learning distinguished normal skin, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with up to 84 percent accuracy in a preliminary study published in the Proceedings of SPIE.

BCC and SCC can resemble benign or precancerous skin lesions. Biopsy followed by microscopic examination remains the standard method for diagnosing these cancers, but researchers are investigating noninvasive tools that could help determine which lesions require further assessment.

The researchers used a mobile system equipped with a 785-nm laser and handheld probe. They examined more than 50 removed tissue samples of normal skin, BCC, and SCC, producing almost 1,000 Raman spectra. Several machine-learning methods were compared to determine how accurately they classified the three tissue types.

K-nearest neighbors and support vector machine models achieved the highest overall accuracy, at approximately 84 percent. The support vector machine had a sensitivity of 78.7 percent and specificity of 88.6 percent.

A shallow neural network achieved 80.8 percent accuracy and the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, at 0.910. This measure indicates how well a model distinguishes between diagnostic categories across different classification thresholds.

Other methods showed different strengths and weaknesses. Partial least squares discriminant analysis achieved 95.5 percent specificity but 66.5 percent sensitivity, indicating that it produced relatively few false-positive results but missed more cancer-associated spectra. Principal component analysis with quadratic discriminant analysis had 77.8 percent sensitivity and 77.7 percent specificity.

The models separated normal skin from cancerous tissue more successfully than they distinguished BCC from SCC. The two cancers had overlapping molecular patterns, which contributed to classification errors. Cancer samples generally showed stronger protein-related signals, while normal skin produced stronger lipid-related signals.

The findings show that Raman spectra contain biochemical information that machine-learning models can use to classify skin tissue. However, the study assessed analytical performance rather than clinical diagnostic accuracy.

Testing was performed on removed tissue, not directly on patients, and the sample set included just over 50 specimens. The reported performance also remained below the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of more than 90 percent that the researchers considered desirable for clinical use.

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #3
Spectroscopy
The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #3

December 6, 2024

4 min read

Bruker’s multiphoton microscopy module, OptoVolt, ranks third in our Innovation Awards. Here, Jimmy Fong, product development lead, walks us through the major moments during development.

More Bang for Your Buck
Spectroscopy
More Bang for Your Buck

December 4, 2024

1 min read

Researchers develop more stable catalysts for dry reforming of methane – a promising method for carbon capture and utilization (CCU)

The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #1
Spectroscopy
The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #1

December 10, 2024

2 min read

And the technology ranked first in our 2024 Innovation Awards is…

The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024
Spectroscopy
The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024

December 11, 2024

10 min read

Meet the products – and the experts – defining analytical innovation in 2024

Affiliations:

Specialties:

Areas of Expertise:

Contributions:

False

The Analytical Scientist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2026 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.