MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786450910 · doi:10.1142/s0219519418500021

SIZE-CONTROLLED DROPLET GENERATION IN A MICROFLUIDIC DEVICE FOR RARE DNA AMPLIFICATION BY OPTIMIZING ITS EFFECTIVE PARAMETERS

2018· article· en· W2786450910 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Lashkaripour, Ali Abouei Mehrizi, Masoud Goharimanesh, Reza Rasouli, Sajad Razavi Bazaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofluidicsRADIUSBody orificeSoftware portabilityVariance (accounting)NanotechnologyMaterials scienceMechanicsBiological systemPhysicsComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Versatility and portability of microfluidic devices play a dominant role in their widespread use by researchers. Droplet-based microfluidic devices have been extensively used due to their precise control over sample volume, and ease of manipulating and addressing each droplet on demand. Droplet-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) devices are particularly desirable in single DNA amplification. If the droplets are small enough to contain only one DNA molecule, single molecule amplification becomes possible, which can be advantageous in several cases such as early cancer detection. In this work, flow-focusing microfluidic droplet generation’s parameters are numerically investigated and optimized for generating the smallest droplet possible, while considering fabrication limits. Taguchi design of experiment method is used to study the effects of key parameters in droplet generation. By exploiting this approach, a droplet with a radius of 111[Formula: see text]nm is generated using a 3[Formula: see text][Formula: see text]m orifice. Since the governing physics of the droplet generation process is not totally understood yet, by means of analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis, a generalized linear model (GLM) is proposed to predict the droplet radius, given the values of eight major parameters affecting the droplet size. The proposed model shows a correlation of 95.3% and 64.95% for droplets of radius greater than and lower than 5[Formula: see text][Formula: see text]m, respectively. Finally, the source of this variation of behavior in different size scales is identified.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and BiologySame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207