MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328480348 · doi:10.1021/acsnano.6b01254

Clinical Validation of Quantum Dot Barcode Diagnostic Technology

2016· article· en· W2328480348 on OpenAlexafffund
Jisung Kim, Mia J. Biondi, Jordan J. Feld, Warren C. W. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Nano · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBarcodeComputer scienceQuantum dotDisruptive technologyBlueprintMedical physicsNanotechnologyMedicineEngineeringManufacturing engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a major focus on the clinical translation of emerging technologies for diagnosing patients with infectious diseases, cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. However, most developments still remain at the academic stage where researchers use spiked target molecules to demonstrate the utility of a technology and assess the analytical performance. This approach does not account for the biological complexities and variabilities of human patient samples. As a technology matures and potentially becomes clinically viable, one important intermediate step in the translation process is to conduct a full clinical validation of the technology using a large number of patient samples. Here, we present a full detailed clinical validation of Quantum Dot (QD) barcode technology for diagnosing patients infected with Hepatitis B Virus (HBV). We further demonstrate that the detection of multiple regions of the viral genome using multiplexed QD barcodes improved clinical sensitivity from 54.9-66.7% to 80.4-90.5%, and describe how to use QD barcodes for optimal clinical diagnosis of patients. The use of QDs in biology and medicine was first introduced in 1998 but has not reached clinical care. This study describes our long-term systematic development strategy to advance QD technology to a clinically feasible product for diagnosing patients. Our "blueprint" for translating the QD barcode research concept could be adapted for other nanotechnologies, to efficiently advance diagnostic techniques discovered in the academic laboratory to patient care.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations126
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS NanoSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207