The Use of UV-Cross-Linkable Di-Block Copolymers as Functional Reaction Surfaces for Microelectrode Arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three types of UV-cross-linkable di-block copolymers have been developed as coatings for microelectrode arrays. All three polymers share the same PCEMA block for the cross-linking reaction. The PBrSt-b-CEMA polymer was shown to be compatible with a series of Pd(0)- and Cu(I)-catalyzed reactions. It was compatible with electrochemical signaling experiments, although it showed non-specific binding to proteins at higher concentrations. In order to study weak binding interactions, PCEMA-b-PPEGMA was developed to reduce non-specific binding. However, it was shown not to be a stable enough surface for array-based reactions. In an effort to make a tunable surface, PCEMA-b-BSt was made and was shown to be compatible with Suzuki reactions on the array, however, the inability of achieving a stable current deemed it incompatible with signaling experiments. The use of a pinacol protected PCEMA-b-pBSt polymer solved these issues. The protected polymer could be site-selectively deprotected, transesterified, and functionalized with Cu(II)-catalyzed reactions. It is also compatible with the electrochemical impedance experiments used to signal binding events on the arrays.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".