Surface Plasmon Resonance Clinical Biosensors for Medical Diagnostics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design and application of sensors for monitoring biomolecules in clinical samples is a common goal of the sensing research community. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and other plasmonic techniques such as localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) and imaging SPR are reaching a maturity level sufficient for their application in monitoring biomolecules in clinical samples. In recent years, the first examples for monitoring antibodies, proteins, enzymes, drugs, small molecules, peptides, and nucleic acids in biofluids collected from patients afflicted with a series of medical conditions (Alzheimer's, hepatitis, diabetes, leukemia, and cancers such as prostate and breast cancers, among others) demonstrate the progress of SPR sensing in clinical chemistry. This Perspective reviews the current status of the field, showcasing a series of early successes in the application of SPR for clinical analysis and detailing a series of considerations regarding sensing schemes, exposing issues with analysis in biofluids, and comparing SPR with ELISA, while providing an outlook of the challenges currently associated with plasmonic materials, instrumentation, microfluidics, bioreceptor selection, selection of a clinical market, and validation of a clinical assay for applying SPR sensors to clinical samples. Research opportunities are proposed to further advance the field and transition SPR biosensors from research proof-of-concept stage to actual clinical applications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it