MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127749254 · doi:10.1101/gr.164401

A Method For Parallel, Automated, Thermal Cycling of Submicroliter Samples

2001· article· en· W2127749254 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Nakane, David Broemeling, Roger Donaldson, Andre Marziali, T. D. Willis, Matthew O’Keefe, Ronald W. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTemperature cyclingDNA sequencingBiologyFraction (chemistry)CyclingComputational biologySample (material)Process engineeringReliability engineeringBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceDNAThermalChromatographyGeneticsEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large fraction of the cost of DNA sequencing and other DNA-analysis processes results from the reagent costs incurred during cycle sequencing or PCR. In particular, the high cost of the enzymes and dyes used in these processes often results in thermal cycling costs exceeding $0.50 per sample. In the case of high-throughput DNA sequencing, this is a significant and unnecessary expense. Improved detection efficiency of new sequencing instrumentation allows the reaction volumes for cycle sequencing to be scaled down to one-tenth of presently used volumes, resulting in at least a 10-fold decrease in the cost of this process. However, commercially available thermal cyclers and automated reaction setup devices have inherent design limitations which make handling volumes of <1 microL extremely difficult. In this paper, we describe a method for thermal cycling aimed at reliable, automated cycling of submicroliter reaction volumes.

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)0.001
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 score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in InsectsFrench-language works237,207