MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772169959 · doi:10.1186/s12645-017-0035-z

Electrochemical and optical biosensors for early-stage cancer diagnosis by using graphene and graphene oxide

2017· review· en· W2772169959 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nanotechnology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGrapheneMaterials scienceNanotechnologyBiosensorOxideBiocompatibilityNanocompositePhotothermal therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional instruments for cancer diagnosis including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan, are expensive and require long-waiting time, whilst the outcomes have not approached to the successful early-stage diagnosis yet. Due to the special properties of graphene-based nanocomposites, e.g., good electrical and thermal conductivity, luminescence, and mechanic flexibility, these ultra-thin two-dimensional nanostructures have been extensively used as platforms for detecting biomolecules and cells. Herein, we discuss the development of two types of graphene and graphene oxide-based biosensors: electrochemical and optical, aimed for tumor detection and early diagnosis of cancer. Moreover, we highlight the challenges of their use as biosensors for cancer detection. Efficient surface modification and suitable bio-conjugation of graphene and graphene oxide is discussed, including key role in improvement of the biocompatibility, and improved performance in terms of selectivity and sensitivity towards the early diagnosis of cancer.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.325 · 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