MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100292671 · doi:10.1109/ims3tw.2008.4581612

Design for testing SU-8 and PDMS based hybrid glucose sensor

2008· article· en· W2100292671 on OpenAlexaff
Jasbir N. Patel, Bożena Kamińska, Bonnie L. Gray, Byron D. Gates

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrochemical sensors and biosensors
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFabricationElectrodeLinearitySubstrate (aquarium)Layer (electronics)OptoelectronicsPhosphate buffered salineNanotechnologyElectronic engineeringChemistryChromatographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a test method for testing SU-8 and PDMS based hybrid glucose sensor with gold electrodes sandwiched between the two SU-8 layers is presented. Poly dimethylesiloxane (PDMS) and SU-8 is used as a flexible and bio-compatible sensor substrate material. Furthermore, SU-8 and PDMS is optically transparent and haemocompatible which is very important for implantable sensors. Different methods for testing glucose sensors are mentioned in a separate section. These test methods are categorized in different sections namely, material related tests, fabrication related tests, electrochemical related test and glucose response tests. And each test section is sub-categorized in appropriate sub-sections. The bottom PDMS layer of the sensor is ~500 mum thick and both SU-8 layers are ~100 mum. Each sensor chip is 5.5 mm X 10.5 mm in size with 2 mm X 3 mm for the actual sensor area. Resistance of the successfully fabricated gold electrodes is measured between 1 to 5 mOmega. The drift of the sensors are measured using phosphate buffer followed by the linearity test using the glucose solution.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsFrench-language works237,207