MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1946059811 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/47.3.380

Signal Amplification in Time-resolved Fluorometry

2001· editorial· en· W1946059811 on OpenAlexaff
Eleftherios P. Diamandis

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2001
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluorescence spectroscopyTime-resolved spectroscopyFluorescenceChromatographyChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A frequent question among clinical biochemists is how sensitive analytical techniques should be in the context of clinical diagnostics. Currently, the analyte concentrations usually encountered in clinical chemistry range from 10−3 to 10−12 mol/L. By far, the most sensitive nonamplification techniques used in the clinical laboratory are based on noncompetitive immunological assays. Is there any need for measuring analytes at even lower concentrations? The answer is likely yes. Once the methodologies for measuring even lower concentrations of analytes are developed and our knowledge of the many new candidate biological markers that likely will be discovered through the Human Genome Project is more complete, we may be interested in or need to measure analyte concentrations that are 1/10th to 1/100th of those currently measured. Hence, we should continually pursue the development of methodologies that can reach the ultimate sensitivity, i.e., detection of single molecules. In other areas of laboratory medicine, e.g., microbiology, single pathogen particles (e.g., viruses and bacteria) have diagnostic significance. We should not forget that the measurement of a single molecule in a very small fraction of the total blood volume may mean that the whole organism could contain relatively large numbers of such pathogenic or abnormal constituents. When the analytes are nucleic acids (DNA or RNA), PCR and other exponential amplification techniques provide a convenient, yet very powerful, way of amplifying specifically these molecules before final quantification. Unfortunately, proteins are not replicable, and their sensitive quantification usually relies on their interaction with specific reagents, mainly antibodies. An alternative approach to target amplification is the concept of signal amplification, which means that after the analyte interacts with a specific binding reagent, the signal is magnified many-fold to be more easily detected. Various forms of signal amplification have been published, including the use of enzymes, macromolecular carriers, branching reagents, and particles.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0130.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207