MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120081470 · doi:10.1071/ma13057

Nanoparticle sample preparation and mass spectrometry for rapid diagnosis of microbial infections

2013· article· en· W2120081470 on OpenAlex
Andrea Ranzoni, Hanna E. Sidjabat, Matthew A. Cooper

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Australia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMass spectrometryComplex matrixBiomarkerSample preparationBiomarker discoveryEx vivoBacteriaComputational biologyProteomicsIn vivoPathogenChemistryNanotechnologyIn vitroChromatographyMicrobiologyBiologyMaterials scienceBiotechnologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro diagnostics encompasses a wide range of medical devices and assays, which aim to provide reliable and accurate diagnosis of disease. This can be achieved by detecting a target, for example, a protein biomarker or a pathogen bacterium, and/or host factors such as cytokines induced in an inflammatory response. Detection involves an assay to capture target molecules and distinguish them from other substances in an ex vivo sample matrix. Selective capturing can be achieved using affinity probes, such as antibodies or small molecules, often coupled to a label, for example, an enzyme or a particle, to facilitate detection in complex matrixes (Figure 1). Today, the combination of nanoparticle approaches for sample preparation/concentration, with high information content, rapid analysis by mass spectrometry, is changing the way we detect and identify pathogenic bacteria in the diagnosis of microbial infection.

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.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · 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