MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electrical Lysis: Dynamics Revisited and Advances in On-chip Operation

2013· review· en· W2083459281 on OpenAlexaff
Bashir I. Morshed, Maitham Shams, Tofy Mussivand

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLysisComputer scienceSonicationNanotechnologyMiniaturizationWorkflowBiochemical engineeringProcess engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceEngineeringBiochemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical lysis (EL) is the process of breaking the cell membrane to expose the internal contents under an applied high electric field. Lysis is an important phenomenon for cellular analysis, medical treatment, and biofouling control. This paper aims to review, summarize, and analyze recent advancements on EL. Major databases including PubMed, Ei Engineering Village, IEEE Xplore, and Scholars Portal were searched using relevant keywords. More than 50 articles published in English since 1997 are cited in this article. EL has several key advantages compared to other lysis techniques such as chemical, mechanical, sonication, or laser, including rapid speed of operation, ability to control, miniaturization, low cost, and low power requirement. A variety of cell types have been investigated for including protoplasts, E. coli, yeasts, blood cells, and cancer cells. EL has been developed and applied for decontamination, cytology, genetics, single-cell analysis, cancer treatment, and other applications. On-chip EL is a promising technology for multiplexed automated implementation of cell-sample preparation and processing with micro- or nanoliter reagents.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207