MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217692123 · doi:10.1039/c5lc01046b

Microfluidic perfusion systems for secretion fingerprint analysis of pancreatic islets: applications, challenges and opportunities

2015· review· en· W2217692123 on OpenAlexaff
F. Rafael Castiello, Khalil Heileman, Maryam Tabrizian

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsletMicrofluidicsSecretionFingerprint (computing)Pancreatic isletsProteomeComputer scienceSecretory proteinComputational biologyBiomedical engineeringNanotechnologyCell biologyInsulinBiologyChemistryMaterials scienceMedicineBioinformaticsArtificial intelligenceBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A secretome signature is a heterogeneous profile of secretions present in a single cell type. From the secretome signature a smaller panel of proteins, namely a secretion fingerprint, can be chosen to feasibly monitor specific cellular activity. Based on a thorough appraisal of the literature, this review explores the possibility of defining and using a secretion fingerprint to gauge the functionality of pancreatic islets of Langerhans. It covers the state of the art regarding microfluidic perfusion systems used in pancreatic islet research. Candidate analytical tools to be integrated within microfluidic perfusion systems for dynamic secretory fingerprint monitoring were identified. These analytical tools include patch clamp, amperometry/voltametry, impedance spectroscopy, field effect transistors and surface plasmon resonance. Coupled with these tools, microfluidic devices can ultimately find applications in determining islet quality for transplantation, islet regeneration and drug screening of therapeutic agents for the treatment of diabetes.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations52
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207