MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977260380 · doi:10.1021/ac991096m

Instrumentation for Chemical Cytometry

2000· article· en· W1977260380 on OpenAlexaff
Sergey N. Krylov, Dieter A. Starke, Edgar A. Arriaga, Zheru Zhang, Nora W. C. Chan, Monica M. Palcic, Norman J. Dovic̀hi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCapillary electrophoresisLysisElectropherogramChromatographyCellElectrokinetic phenomenaCapillary actionFlow cytometryCell cultureMolecular biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capillary electrophoresis is ideally suited to chemical analysis of individual cells. Small mammalian somatic cells (approximately 15 microns in diameter) can be analyzed by injecting the intact cell into a capillary, lysing the cell, separating and detecting the cellular components, and reconditioning the capillary prior to the next injection. In this paper, we report on technical improvements to single-cell analysis. We designed an inexpensive multipurpose single-cell injector that facilitates the following: (i) monitoring of injection, (ii) reproducible pressure- or electrokinetic-driven injection of the cell, (iii) complete cell lysis by SDS within 30 s of injection, and (iv) pressure-driven capillary reconditioning. Furthermore, we report on the analysis of glycosylation and glycolysis in single human carcinoma cells (HT29 cell line). The reliability and quality of the analysis is confirmed by comparing electropherograms from single cells and those from purified cell extracts.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.056

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations116
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207