A review of sorting, separation and isolation of cells and microbeads for biomedical applications: microfluidic approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several biomedical analyses are performed on particular types of cells present in body samples or using functionalized microparticles. Success in such analyses depends on the ability to separate or isolate the target cells or microparticles from the rest of the sample. In conventional procedures, multiple pieces of equipment, such as centrifuges, magnets, and macroscale filters, are used for such purposes, which are time-consuming, associated with human error, and require several operational steps. In the past two decades, there has been a tendency to develop microfluidic techniques, so-called lab-on-a-chip, to miniaturize and automate these procedures. The processes used for the separation and isolation of the cells and microparticles are scaled down into a small microfluidic chip, requiring very small amounts of sample. Differences in the physical and biological properties of the target cells from the other components present in the sample are the key to the development of such microfluidic techniques. These techniques are categorized as filtration-, hydrodynamic-, dielectrophoretic-, acoustic- and magnetic-based methods. Here we review the microfluidic techniques developed for sorting, separation, and isolation of cells and microparticles for biomedical applications. The mechanisms behind such techniques are thoroughly explained and the applications in which these techniques have been adopted are reviewed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".