A comparative overview of two transimpedance amplifiers for biosensing applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work compares two CMOS front-end transimpedance amplifiers (TIA) for use in optical biosensors. They are the shunt-feedback and current-mode circuits, the most widely used for wideband operation. The former consists of a three-stage nested-Miller-compensated (NMC) amplifier in non-inverting mode with a photodiode (PD) bootstrapping and a controlled voltage gain; the latter comprises a wideband common-gate feedback (CGFB) current mirror coupled to a current-to-voltage conversion stage and two common-source gain stages. The simulation results show that the shunt-feedback TIA achieves a maximal gain of 112 dBΩ over a 2 MHz bandwidth, whereas the current-mode TIA has a flat gain of roughly 83 dBΩ over a 115 MHz bandwidth. The overall input rms noise of each circuit was 185pA/√Hz and 53nA/√Hz, respectively, with power consumptions of 0.5 mW and 28.6 mW. It is concluded that the shunt-feedback TIA is a better choice for low to mid-frequency applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".