MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141798425 · doi:10.1039/c3an01989f

Bacteriophages: biosensing tools for multi-drug resistant pathogens

2014· review· en· W2141798425 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadim Tawil, E. Sacher, Rosemonde Mandeville, Michel Meunier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalBioPhage Pharma (Canada)Regroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiosensorBacteriophageNanotechnologyMicrobiologyBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pathogen detection is of utmost importance in many sectors, such as in the food industry, environmental quality control, clinical diagnostics, bio-defence and counter-terrorism. Failure to appropriately, and specifically, detect pathogenic bacteria can lead to serious consequences, and may ultimately be lethal. Public safety, new legislation, recent outbreaks in food contamination, and the ever-increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections have fostered a worldwide research effort targeting novel biosensing strategies. This review concerns phage-based analytical and biosensing methods targeted towards theranostic applications. We discuss and review phage-based assays, notably phage amplification, reporter phage, phage lysis, and bioluminescence assays for the detection of bacterial species, as well as phage-based biosensors, including optical (comprising SPR sensors and fiber optic assays), electrochemical (comprising amperometric, potentiometric, and impedimetric sensors), acoustic wave and magnetoelastic sensors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207