Source author record

Michael P. Wallace

Michael P. Wallace appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

1works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2025arXiv

Photon Absorption Remote Sensing Virtual Histopathology: A Preliminary Exploration of Diagnostic Equivalence to Gold-Standard H&E Staining in Skin Cancer Excisional Biopsies

Photon Absorption Remote Sensing (PARS) enables label-free imaging of subcellular morphology by observing biomolecule specific absorption interactions. Coupled with deep-learning, PARS produces label-free virtual Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) stained images in unprocessed tissues. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of PARS virtual H&E images in excisional skin biopsies, including Squamous (SCC), Basal (BCC) Cell Carcinoma, and normal skin. Sixteen unstained formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded skin excisions were PARS imaged, virtually H&E stained, then chemically stained and imaged at 40x. Seven fellowship trained dermatopathologists assessed all images. Example PARS and chemical H&E whole-slide images from this study are available at the BioImage Archive (https://doi.org/10.6019/S-BIAD2324). Concordance analysis indicates 95.5% agreement between primary diagnoses from PARS versus H&E images (Cohen's k=0.93). Inter-rater reliability was near-perfect for both image types (Fleiss' k=0.89 for PARS, k=0.80 for H&E). For subtype classification, agreement was near-perfect 91% (k=0.73) for SCC and was perfect for BCC. For malignancy confinement (e.g., cancer margins), agreement was 92% between PARS and H&E (k=0.718). During assessment dermatopathologists could not reliably distinguish image origin (PARS vs. H&E), and diagnostic confidence was equivalent. Inter-rater reliability for PARS virtual H&E was consistent with reported histologic evaluation benchmarks. These results indicate that PARS virtual histology may be diagnostically equivalent to chemical H&E staining in dermatopathology diagnostics, while enabling assessment directly from unlabeled slides. In turn, the label-free PARS virtual H&E imaging workflow may preserve tissue for downstream analysis while producing data well-suited for AI integration potentially accelerating and enhancing skin cancer diagnostics.