Automatic detecting and counting magnetic beads‐labeled target cells from a suspension in a microfluidic chip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel microfluidic method of continually detecting and counting beads-labeled cells from a cell mixture without fluorescence labeling was presented in this paper. The detection system is composed of a microfluidic chip (with a permanent magnet inserted along the channel), a signal amplification circuit, and a LabView® based data acquisition device. The microfluidic chip can be functionally divided into separation zone and detection zone. By flowing the pre-labeled sample solution, the target cells will be sequentially separated at the separation zone by the permanent magnet and detected and counted at the detection zone by a microfluidic resistive pulse sensor. Experiments of positive separation and detection of T-lymphocytes and negative separation and detection of cancer cells from the whole blood samples were carried out to demonstrate the effectiveness of this method. The methodology of utilizing size difference between magnetic beads and cell-magnetic beads complex for beads-labeled cell detection is simple, automatic, and particularly suitable for beads-based immunoassay without using fluorescence labeling.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".