FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1978114029> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1978114029 endingPage "1062" @default.
• W1978114029 startingPage "1061" @default.
• W1978114029 abstract "Thank you for the opportunity of replying to the letter from Rogers et al. entitled “Reproducibility of Cancer Diagnosis Using Hair” that addresses our article “Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer by Hair Diffraction,”1 published electronically on 11th January this year, on which I was the principal author. Rogers et al. claim that our article may mislead nonspecialists in this area and produce an unfounded air of optimism for a rapid diagnostic technique, yet they themselves have not published any data to the contrary and only sited the failed attempts of other nonspecialists. I am aware that two of the authors, Tim Wess and Karen Siu, have used synchrotron radiation to study collagenous material by X-ray diffraction, but there is a vast difference between the experimental procedures used to study collagen and those required for α-keratin in hair. We concluded that the opinions offered by the authors can only be regarded as those of scientists peripherally involved in the use of synchrotron radiation to study hair. It would please my vanity to imagine that I had single-handedly accomplished all the research that has been encompassed in my 14 publications on studies of keratin (13 of these along with 6 conference papers are directly related to the diffraction of hair), but I have actually been ably assisted in this research by no less than 35 scientists. The latter have come from Australia, Europe, Japan, UK, USA, and New Zealand. In fact any person who has wanted to assist has been welcomed to do so. Any of the scientists involved in this research would be able to repeat the actual experimental procedures to obtain the data required for analysis and all would agree that great attention to detail is necessary when loading and mounting samples. Six of these scientists have independently analyzed sets of data to verify and validate my own results. These facts have been alluded to in this article, and even a set of results by one such scientist, himself a solid state physicist, has been included. Some of these scientists have been openly skeptical of the technique at the commencement of their individual beam time, but, at the conclusion, none have doubted the possibility that the results are eminently reproducible. All have agreed that, as a diagnostic tool, this is a very attractive and patient friendly technique that does not cause the patient any discomfort or exposure to X-radiation as in mammography nor is it invasive or potentially painful as would be a needle biopsy (Lewis et al.2). As it is totally noninvasive, it would also provide a very safe test for women under 40, where mammography is discouraged. The results reported in our article not only confirm this but also reinforce that this test, which shows changes at a very early stage of breast cancer growth, could be very valuable as a breast cancer screening test for all women, regardless of their age. Attention has been drawn to these details in our article, but have either been overlooked or ignored by Rogers et al. in their “reading and deliberation.” This also confirms that the SAXS community referred to by Rogers et al. is but a subset of the entire SAXS community, some of whom have no problems with the results at all. This was my thirteenth article in a series of articles on hair diffraction, and it was felt unnecessary to include the full experimental protocol that has been outlined in great detail in earlier works.3, 4 Details were placed on the ANSTO website at the time the work was published in Nature and this fact was reported in Nature following the article by Briki et al.5 A very detailed description was handed out at the SAXS meeting in Brookhaven in 1999. We have tried numerous variations of experimental protocols and methods of analysis but none have proved as reliable as those presented in the earlier work. Despite the availability of these detailed descriptions of our protocols, several laboratories failed to reproduce our results but none of these teams actually attempted to follow our protocol. Even after the publication of the most convincing independent proof of our technology in our “Correctly Identifying Breast Cancer Patients in the Double Blinded Re-analysis of Hair Samples” that had been scored negative by one such group, there were no follow up retrials by other groups using our protocol. No attempts were made to seek help with respect to individual problems by any of these groups, except by Briki et al., who requested information about the very dark rings seen in their data. Problems with sample handling inherent in their experiment were explained. Still further help was offered, in the publication of the further articles, referred to by Rogers et al.,6, 7 outlining the technical explanation for failures including the further article quoted by Rogers et al. These articles included pictures of spurious rings similar to those published by the unsuccessful teams. These publications also failed to produce any repeated experiments. It should be re-emphasised that failures should not reflect on our results if our experimental and analysis procedures are not followed exactly. Rogers et al. raised concern over specimen heating while in the X-ray beam that may compromise our results. This problem of sample destruction has been ably dealt with in a publication by Siu et al.,8 wherein she states that “The high penetration and short wavelength of X-rays permit high resolution, nondestructive analysis of materials. For this reason, X-ray analysis underlies several important diagnostic techniques in medicine….” Moreover, their criticism of the use of the mice as their own control group is unfounded, and the criticism of analyzing mature versus new growth filaments again demonstrates misunderstanding of our article. Complete whiskers were cut from the animal as close to the skin as possible for both the pre and post implantation samples and the root ends of samples were used in both cases so no comparative ageing was involved. The diameter of the breast cancer ring as reported in the Meyer and James9 was, as stated in that article, obtained from improved resolution of the first order that was attainable at BioCAT (Advanced Photon Source). Finally, I am confused by the statement that a ring of lower intensity is visible in Figure 3a. There is in fact no full ring in Figure 3a, but possibly an optical illusion of one. If one places one's fingers over the meridionals, this illusion will be obliterated. A salutary outcome would be the repetition of this experiment by Rogers et al. with minute attention to the technical details of our protocol. In the event of continued failure to reproduce the work, I would be available to assist. Yours sincerely, Veronica J. James." @default.
• W1978114029 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1978114029 creator A5051127539 @default.
• W1978114029 date "2005-09-08" @default.
• W1978114029 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1978114029 title "Reply to the letter of Rogerset al. entitled “Reproducibility of cancer diagnosis using hair”" @default.
• W1978114029 cites W1615798147 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W1966447602 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W1991063851 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W2003225804 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W2020534056 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W2027133049 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W2034068556 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W2036032050 @default.
• W1978114029 cites W2149701685 @default.
• W1978114029 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21457" @default.
• W1978114029 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1978114029 type Work @default.
• W1978114029 sameAs 1978114029 @default.
• W1978114029 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1978114029 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1978114029 hasAuthorship W1978114029A5051127539 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConcept C9893847 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConceptScore W1978114029C105795698 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConceptScore W1978114029C19527891 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConceptScore W1978114029C33923547 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConceptScore W1978114029C71924100 @default.
• W1978114029 hasConceptScore W1978114029C9893847 @default.
• W1978114029 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1978114029 hasLocation W19781140291 @default.
• W1978114029 hasOpenAccess W1978114029 @default.
• W1978114029 hasPrimaryLocation W19781140291 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2050570282 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2221506115 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2317032953 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2400306695 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2462432470 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2910125765 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2921224647 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W2945027600 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W3001670983 @default.
• W1978114029 hasRelatedWork W4327811650 @default.
• W1978114029 hasVolume "118" @default.
• W1978114029 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1978114029 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1978114029 magId "1978114029" @default.
• W1978114029 workType "article" @default.