MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566417167 · doi:10.1364/boe.8.000446

Projection method for improving signal to noise ratio of localized surface plasmon resonance biosensors

2016· article· en· W2566417167 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Abumazwed, Wakana Kubo, Chen Shen, Takuo Tanaka, Andrew G. Kirk

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Projection (relational algebra)SIGNAL (programming language)Surface plasmon resonanceNoise (video)Limit (mathematics)Detection limitProjection methodSignal processingComputer scienceBiosensorOpticsMaterials scienceAlgorithmPhysicsArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsNanotechnologyMathematicsDykstra's projection algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a simple and accurate method (the projection method) to improve the signal to noise ratio of localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR). The nanostructures presented in the paper can be readily fabricated by nanoimprint lithography. The finite difference time domain method is used to simulate the structures and generate a reference matrix for the method. The results are validated against experimental data and the proposed method is compared against several other recently published signal processing techniques. We also apply the projection method to biotin-streptavidin binding experimental data and determine the limit of detection (LoD). The method improves the signal to noise ratio (SNR) by one order of magnitude, and hence decreases the limit of detection when compared to the direct measurement of the transmission-dip. The projection method outperforms the established methods in terms of accuracy and achieves the best combination of signal to noise ratio and limit of detection.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon ResearchFrench-language works237,207