MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765759611 · doi:10.3390/s17112464

Electrochemical Detection of Plasma Immunoglobulin as a Biomarker for Alzheimer’s Disease

2017· article· en· W2765759611 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Goulielmos-Zois Garyfallou, Orlando Ketebu, Samet Şahin, Elizabeta B. Mukaetova‐Ladinska, Michael Catt, Eileen Hao Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrochemical sensors and biosensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPetroleum Technology Development FundEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilAlzheimer Society
KeywordsPolyclonal antibodiesAntibodyBiomarkerSerial dilutionAlbuminImmunoglobulin GBlood plasmaMedicineImmunoassayImmunologyChemistryPathologyInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) represent a challenge to clinicians due to the variability of clinical symptomatology as well as the unavailability of reliable diagnostic tests. In this study, the development of a novel electrochemical assay and its potential to detect peripheral blood biomarkers to diagnose AD using plasma immunoglobulins is investigated. The immunosensor employs a gold electrode as the immobilizing substrate, albumin depleted plasma immunoglobulin as the biomarker, and polyclonal rabbit Anti-human immunoglobulin (against IgA, IgG, IgM) as the receptor for plasma conjugation. The assay showed good response, sensitivity and reproducibility in differentiating plasma immunoglobulin from AD and control subjects down to 10−9 dilutions of plasma immunoglobulin representing plasma content concentrations in the pg mL−1 range. The newly developed assay is highly sensitive, less time consuming, easy to handle, can be easily modified to detect other dementia-related biomarkers in blood samples, and can be easily integrated into portable devices.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsFrench-language works237,207