MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970536964 · doi:10.1039/c0an01007c

Microcantilever biosensors for chemicals and bioorganisms

2011· review· en· W1970536964 on OpenAlexaff
Koutilya R. Buchapudi, Xin Huang, Xin Yang, Hai‐Feng Ji, Thomas Thundat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsBiosensorAnalyteNanotechnologyProtein detectionComponent (thermodynamics)ChemistryComputer scienceMaterials scienceChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last fifteen years, microcantilevers (MCLs) have been emerging as a sensitive tool for the detection of chemicals and bioorganisms. Because of their small size, lightweight, and high surface-to-volume ratio, MCL-based sensors improve our capability to detect and identify biological agents by orders of magnitude. A biosensor is a device for the detection of an analyte that combines a biological component with a physicochemical detector component. The MCL biosensors have recently been reviewed in several papers. All of these papers were organized based on the sensing biological elements (antibody, enzyme, proteins, etc.) for recognition of analytes. In this review, we intend to summarize the microcantilever biosensors in a format of each specific chemical and bioorganism species to make information on individual biosensors easily accessible. We did this to aid researchers to locate relevant references.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations107
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207