Diagnostics· 2026Q2
Photon Absorption Remote Sensing Virtual Histopathology: A Preliminary Exploration of Diagnostic Equivalence to Gold-Standard H&E Staining in Skin Cancer Excisional Biopsies
- 1citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Photon Absorption Remote Sensing (PARS) coupled with deep learning can generate label-free virtual H&E images of skin cancer excisions with diagnostic performance comparable to traditional H&E staining, achieving 96.7% sensitivity and 95.2% specificity.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- PARS technology generates label-free virtual H&E images of skin cancer excisions.
- Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of PARS virtual H&E were comparable to conventional H&E staining (96.7% vs 95.6% sensitivity; 95.2% vs 85.7% specificity).
- Primary diagnostic agreement between PARS and H&E was 95.5% with high inter-rater reliability.
- Inter-modality agreement for SCC and BCC subtyping was high (91.8% and 100%, respectively).
- Dermatopathologists showed equivalent diagnostic confidence and could not reliably distinguish image origins.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Background: Photon Absorption Remote Sensing (PARS) enables label-free imaging of subcellular morphology by observing absorption interactions. Coupled with deep-learning, PARS produces label-free virtual hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) images in unprocessed tissues. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of PARS-derived virtual H&E images in skin excisions, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and normal skin. Methods: Sixteen unstained formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded excisions were PARS-imaged, then stained with chemical H&E dye. Seven fellowship-trained dermatopathologists assessed all 32 images (16 PARS and 16 H&E) in a masked randomized fashion. Example PARS and chemical-H&E whole-slide images are available at the S-BIAD2324 Archive. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were comparable between PARS (sensitivity: 96.7% [95% CI: 89.5–100.0%]; specificity: 95.2% [95% CI: 74.7–100.0%]) and H&E (sensitivity: 95.6% [95% CI: 88.2–100.0%]; specificity: 85.7% [95% CI: 50.2–100.0%]). Primary diagnostic agreement was 95.5% (95% CI: 89.5–100.0%; Cohen’s κ = 0.929 [95% CI: 0.869–0.989]), with high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ κ = 0.886 [95% CI: 0.751–1.00] for PARS; κ = 0.805 [95% CI: 0.652–0.958] for H&E). Inter-modality subtyping agreement was 91.8% (95% CI: 81.4–100.0%; Cohen’s κ = 0.731 [95% CI: 0.375–1.000]) for SCC and 100% (κ = 1.000) for BCC. For margin confinement, agreement was 92.2% (95% CI: 85.0–99.4%; Cohen’s κ = 0.718 [95% CI: 0.452–0.984]). Dermatopathologists could not reliably distinguish image origin, and diagnostic confidence was statistically equivalent between modalities. Conclusions: Diagnostic performance of PARS virtual H&E images was consistent with established clinical benchmarks, providing encouraging preliminary evidence of diagnostic concordance with conventional H&E staining. While larger validation cohorts are required to establish true clinical equivalence, these initial findings highlight PARS label-free virtual histology as a promising approach to enhance dermatopathology diagnostics by preserving tissue for downstream analysis while supporting AI integration.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Diagnostics, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Artificial Intelligence
Artificial IntelligenceComputer Science