Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 15–24 | Cite as

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Biofield Diagnostic System in Breast Cancer Detection Using Clinical Study Results and Classifiers

  • Vinitha Sree Subbhuraam
  • E. Y. K. Ng
  • G. Kaw
  • Rajendra Acharya U
  • B. K. Chong
Original Paper


The division of breast cancer cells results in regions of electrical depolarisation within the breast. These regions extend to the skin surface from where diagnostic information can be obtained through measurements of the skin surface electropotentials using sensors. This technique is used by the Biofield Diagnostic System (BDS) to detect the presence of malignancy. This paper evaluates the efficiency of BDS in breast cancer detection and also evaluates the use of classifiers for improving the accuracy of BDS. 182 women scheduled for either mammography or ultrasound or both tests participated in the BDS clinical study conducted at Tan Tock Seng hospital, Singapore. Using the BDS index obtained from the BDS examination and the level of suspicion score obtained from mammography/ultrasound results, the final BDS result was deciphered. BDS demonstrated high values for sensitivity (96.23%), specificity (93.80%), and accuracy (94.51%). Also, we have studied the performance of five supervised learning based classifiers (back propagation network, probabilistic neural network, linear discriminant analysis, support vector machines, and a fuzzy classifier), by feeding selected features from the collected dataset. The clinical study results show that BDS can help physicians to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions, and thereby, aid in making better biopsy recommendations.


Breast cancer Electropotentials Biofield Diagnostic System Classifiers Clinical Study 


Conflict of interest statement

None declared.


  1. 1.
    SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975–2006, National Cancer Institute. Information available at (last accessed Jan 2010).
  2. 2.
    Ng, E. Y.-K., Vinitha Sree, S., Ng, K. H., and Kaw, G., The use of tissue electrical characteristics for breast cancer detection: a perspective review. Tech. Cancer Res. Treat. 7(4):295–308, 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biofield Diagnostic System. Information available at (last accessed Jan 2010).
  4. 4.
    Vinitha Sree, S., Ng, E. Y.-K., Kaw, G., Rajendra Acharya, U., and Chong, B. K., The use of skin surface electropotentials for breast cancer detection: preliminary clinical trial results obtained using the Biofield Diagnostic System. J. Med. Syst., 2009. doi: 10.1007/s10916-009-9343-0.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davies, R. J., Underlying mechanism involved in surface electrical potential measurements for the diagnosis of breast cancer: an electrophysiological approach to breast cancer. In: Dixon, J. M. (Ed.), Electropotentials in The Clinical Assessment of Breast Neoplasia. Springer, New York, pp. 4–17, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goller, D. A., Weidema, W. F., and Davies, R. J., Transmural electrical potential difference as an early marker in colon cancer. Arch. Surg. 121(3):345–350, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marino, A. A., Iliev, I. G., Schwalke, M. A., Gonzalez, E., Marler, K. C., and Flanagan, C. A., Association between cell membrane potential and breast cancer. Tumour. Biol. 15(2):82–89, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiss, B. A., Ganpola, G. A. P., Freeman, H. P., Hsu, Y.-S., and Faupel, M. L., Surface electrical potentials as a new modality in the diagnosis of breast lesions: a preliminary report. Breast Dis. 7(2):91–98, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faupel, M. L., and Hsu, Y.-S., Dedicated systems for surface electropotential evaluation in the detection and diagnosis of neoplasia. In: Dixon, J. M. (Ed.), Electropotentials in the Clinical Assessment of Breast Neoplasia. Springer, Berlin, pp. 37–44, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sacchini, V., Report of the European School of Oncology Task Force on Electropotentials in the clinical assessment of neoplasia. Breast 5(4):282–286, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faupel, M. L., Vanel, D., Barth, V., Davies, R., Fentiman, I. S., Holland, R., Lamarque, J. L., Sacchini, V., and Schreer, I., Electropotential evaluation as a new technique for diagnosing breast lesions. Eur. J. Radiol. 24(1):33–38, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faupel, M., Barrett, B., Stephens, J., and Nathanson, S., inventors; Biofield Corp., assignee. D.C biopotential sensing electrode and electroconductive medium for use therein. United States patent US 5823957. 1998 Oct 20.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cuzick, J., Holland, R., Barth, V., Davies, R., Faupel, M., Fentiman, I., et al., Electropotential measurements as a new diagnostic modality for breast cancer. Lancet. 352(9125):359–363, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cuzick, J., Davies, R., Stephens, J., Borgwardt, V., Housworth, C., Lei, X., Gadsby, P., and Iskac, A., inventors; Biofield Corp., assignee. Method and apparatus for sensing and processing biopotentials. United States patent US 6351666. 2002 Feb 26.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallager, H. S., and Martin, J. E., Early phases in the development of breast cancer. Cancer 24(6):1170–1178, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukuda, M., Shimizu, K., Okamoto, N., Arimura, T., Ohta, T., Yamaguchi, S., et al., Prospective evaluation of skin surface electropotentials in Japanese patients with suspicious breast lesions. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 87(10):1092–1096, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Biofield Diagnostic System, Physician’s manual. Manual No. Dossier463_617_389 rev 1. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sacchini, V., Gatzemeier, W., Costa, A., Merson, M., Bonanni, B., Gennaro, M., Zandonini, G., Gennari, R., Holland, R., Schreer, I., and Vanel, D., Utility of biopotentials measured with the Biofield Diagnostic System for distinguishing malignant from benign lesions and proliferative from nonproliferative benign lesions. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 76:S116, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Imaginis. Information available at (last accessed Jan 2010).
  20. 20.
    MedCalc statistical software. Information available at (last accessed Jan 2010).
  21. 21.
    Witten, I. H., and Frank, E., Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, p. 525, 2005.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wasserman, P. D., Advanced Methods in Neural Computing. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p. 250, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crowe, S. S., and Faupel, M. L., Use of non-directed (screening) arrays in the evaluation of symptomatic and asymptomatic breast patients. In: Dixon, J. M. (Ed.), Electropotentials in the Assessment of Breast Neoplasia. Springer, Berlin, pp. 52–62, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vinitha Sree Subbhuraam
    • 1
  • E. Y. K. Ng
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. Kaw
    • 3
  • Rajendra Acharya U
    • 4
  • B. K. Chong
    • 3
  1. 1.Advanced Design & Modelling Lab 1, School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Block N3, Level 1Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Adjunct NUH Scientist, Office of Biomedical ResearchNational University HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Consultant Radiologist, Department of Diagnostic RadiologyTan Tock Seng HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.School of Engineering, Division of ECENgee Ann PolytechnicSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations