Evidence Hub

A prospective cohort study testing whether oral cavity mucosal tissue variability influences elastic scattering spectroscopy (ESS) measures

M. Sakharkar, G. Spokas, P. Jalihal, L. Berry, E. Rodríguez-Díaz, I. Bigio, G. Grillone, G. P. Krisciunas

American Journal of Otolaryngology, 2026

30 participants

Abstract

Objective: Elastic Scattering Spectroscopy (ESS) has been shown to accurately discriminate between benign and malignant tissue in the oral cavity, which makes it a promising technology to assist with intraoperative oral cancer margin guidance. However, some spectroscopy-based technologies are influenced by locoregional histopathological differences, which can influence diagnostic accuracy and data acquisition procedures. The objective of this study was to assess the extent to which ESS spectral readings of mucosal tissue varied between different anatomic regions of the oral cavity in a cohort of healthy adults. Methods: The study included 30 participants with no known history of smoking, vaping, or other substance use-related carcinogenic exposures, with normal oral mucosa, and without history of head or neck cancer or other inflammatory conditions. ESS measurements were obtained at predefined anatomic sites within the oral cavity, and spectra were grouped into five classes based on histopathologic similarities of tissue architecture (Class 1: soft palate, mucosal lip, buccal mucosa; Class 2: retromolar trigone, hard palate, gingiva; Class 3: dorsal tongue; Class 4: lateral tongue; Class 5: floor of mouth, ventral tongue). Random forests were used to build predictive models and Leave-One-Patient-Out (LOPO) cross-validation used to obtain performance statistics. Statistical analyses included sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 30 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free