MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100576803

Detection of Neuron Specific Enolase (NSE) with the Protein Biosensor Based on Imaging Ellipsometry

2012· article· en· W2100576803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gang Jin, Yu Niu, Ziyan Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnolaseReproducibilityDetection limitBiosensorCalibration curveImmunoassayMolecular biologyGold standard (test)Biomedical engineeringAntibodyMedicineAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyChemistryPathologyMaterials scienceBiologyNanotechnologyImmunohistochemistryInternal medicineImmunology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumor markers can provide convincing evidence for tumor angiogenesis in early-stage, so that the need for  novel and effective methods which can detect tumor markers rapidly, sensitively and reliably is consequently being subjected to extensive interest. The biosensor based on imaging ellipsometry (BIE) is developed for the detection of Neuron specific enolase (NSE) as a trial and its diagnosis performance is evaluated. Anti-NSE antibody as ligand is immobilized on protein A modified silicon substrate to form NSE sensing surface. Then, NSE test is carried out with the setup of a calibration curve for clinical quantitative detection purpose. The relationship between BIE signal y (grayscale value) and NSE concentration x (ng/ml) is y=19.6 lg(x) + 70.1 and the limit of detection achieves 2 ng/ml. The specificity, reproducibility and accuracy for NSE detection with BIE are all adequate to clinical diagnosis requirements. 149 serum samples have been detected quantitatively with BIE and their results are in agreement with a commercial ELISA immunoassay.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207