MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053012821 · doi:10.1002/jemt.20614

Rapid detection of microorganisms with nanoparticles and electron microscopy

2008· article· en· W2053012821 on OpenAlexaff
Ghinwa Naja, Sabahudin Hrapovic, Keith B. Male, Pierre Bouvrette, John H. T. Luong

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy Research and Technique · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaBiotechnology Research InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhodococcus rhodochrousNanoparticleRaman spectroscopyScanning electron microscopeChemistryColloidal goldMicroorganismSodium borohydrideNuclear chemistryElectron microscopeMaterials scienceChromatographyNanotechnologyBacteriaRhodococcusBiochemistryBiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid detection of microorganisms is highly desirable. A procedure has been developed based on interactions between gold nanoparticles and proteins of microorganisms (Escherichia coli, Rhodococcus rhodochrous, and Candida sp.) followed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The nanoparticle-cell interaction was confirmed by ultraviolet resonance Raman spectroscopy (UVRS) in the SEM focus. Cell suspensions in a buffer were interacted with gold nanoparticles (<10 nm in diameter) prepared from tetrachloroauric acid and sodium borohydride. Possible interference of elevated salt concentrations was eliminated by dialysis in deionized water. Small (10 microL) aliquots of cell-nanoparticle suspensions were dried on a silicon wafer and photographed under an SEM. Characteristic bacterial or yeast cell images in the micrographs indicated the actual presence of microorganisms in the suspension examined. This was further confirmed by UV resonance Raman spectroscopy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy Research and TechniqueSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207