MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010307454 · doi:10.1021/ac401150q

Digital Microfluidics: An Emerging Sample Preparation Platform for Mass Spectrometry

2013· review· en· W2010307454 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrowetting and Microfluidic Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMicroscale chemistryMicrofluidicsChemistryMicroreactorDigital microfluidicsMass spectrometrySample preparationNanotechnologyMerge (version control)Sample (material)ChromatographyProcess engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectrodeComputer scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass spectrometry (MS) has become an indispensable tool for laboratory science, but a drawback is the laborious sample processing required before MS analysis. Digital microfluidics (DMF), a microscale liquid handling technique characterized by the manipulation of fluid droplets on open electrode arrays, presents a potential solution to this problem. In DMF, discrete droplets can be made to merge, mix, split, and dispense from reservoirs. Since droplets are manipulated individually and act as discrete microreactors, DMF is well suited for microscale sample processing. Coupling the versatility of MS analysis with DMF sample handling has been beneficial for a number of DMF-based applications, including proteomics, chemical synthesis, and clinical diagnostics. In this review, we provide a summary of efforts to integrate these two technologies, focusing on examples of both off-line and in-line MS analysis for DMF sample processing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.274 · 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