MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548753054 · doi:10.1109/hic.2014.7038865

Fast and inexpensive detection of bacterial viability and drug resistance through metabolic monitoring

2014· article· en· W2548753054 on OpenAlexaff
Sondos Ayyash, Wen‐I Wu, P. Ravi Selvaganapathy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluorescenceDrug resistanceMicrofabricationChemistryCombinatorial chemistryNanotechnologyChromatographyMicrobiologyMaterials scienceBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional methods for the detection of bacterial viability and drug resistance are either expensive, time consuming, or not definitive, and thus do not provide all the information sought by the medical professionals. Here, we solve these problems by introducing an innovative detection method to produce rapid and accurate diagnosis of bacterial infection through miniaturization and parallelization. This method is demonstrated with wells of several shapes (square, circle), diameters (100 – 1000µm) and depths (≤100 µm). In the development of proof of concept, we use laboratory strain of E.coli as the model pathogen. The integration of the fluorescent oxygen sensor, ruthenium tris (2,2′-diprydl) dichloride hexahydrate (RTDP), allows us to monitor the dissolved oxygen concentration as a measure of bacterial metabolism. Detection time of the bacteria within the microwells can be as fast as a few of hours (4–5hrs), with concentrations that vary between 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> to 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">8</sup> cells/mL. Adding the appropriate drug to the broth and measuring growth through fluorescence also probed drug resistance. This reported method for microfabrication of the wells, is rapid, economical, versatile and simple.

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)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207