Intrinsic fluorescence‐based <i>at situ</i> soft sensor for monitoring monoclonal antibody aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy, in conjunction with partial least squares regression (PLSR), was investigated as a potential technique for online quality control and quantitative monitoring of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) aggregation that occurs following exposure to conditions that emulate those that can occur during protein downstream processing. Initially, the impact of three stress factors (temperature, pH, and protein concentration) on the degree of aggregation determined using size exclusion chromatography data, was investigated by performing a central composite designexperiment and applying a fitting response surface model. This investigation identified the influence of the factors as well as the operating regions with minimum propensity to induce protein aggregation. Spectral changes pertinent to the stressed samples were also investigated and found to corroborate the high sensitivity of the intrinsic fluorescence to conformational changes of the proteins under study. Ultimately, partial least squares regression was implemented to formulate two fluorescence-based soft sensors for quality control--product classification--and quantitative monitoring--concentration of monomer. The resulting regression models exhibited accurate prediction ability and good potential for in situ monitoring of monoclonal antibody downstream purification processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".