On the design of an electronic mosquito: design and analysis of the micro-needle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the design of the Electronic Mosquito. It presents the analysis for the in-plane silicon micro-needles that can be used for drug delivery and/or blood sampling for biomedical applications. The characteristics of in-plane micro-needles are far more reliable than out-of-plane micro-needles for transdermal drug delivery and blood sampling. In order to withdraw blood samples from the subcutaneous fat layer, which occurs at a distance of 2000 to 4000 /spl mu/m below the skin surface, the length of our MEMS based in-plane micro-needle have been set at 3000 /spl mu/m. This length is impractical for out-of-plane micro-needles. Drug delivery and blood samplings place requirement in terms of minimal needle dimensions and force withstanding capabilities, which are inversely related to each other. The strength of the micro-needles has been examined analytically and modeled using finite element modeling tools. Through performance analysis it is shown that the proposed design is a significant improvement over existing micro-needles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".