MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041803159 · doi:10.3390/bios10070077

Overview of Recent Advances in the Design of Plasmonic Fiber-Optic Biosensors

2020· review· en· W3041803159 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiosensors · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosensorOptical fiberPlasmonNanotechnologyMaterials sciencePhotonic-crystal fiberFlexibility (engineering)Fiber optic sensorFiberComputer scienceOptoelectronicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasmonic fiber-optic biosensors combine the flexibility and compactness of optical fibers and high sensitivity of nanomaterials to their surrounding medium, to detect biological species such as cells, proteins, and DNA. Due to their small size, accuracy, low cost, and possibility of remote and distributed sensing, plasmonic fiber-optic biosensors are promising alternatives to traditional methods for biomolecule detection, and can result in significant advances in clinical diagnostics, drug discovery, food process control, disease, and environmental monitoring. In this review article, we overview the key plasmonic fiber-optic biosensing design concepts, including geometries based on conventional optical fibers like unclad, side-polished, tapered, and U-shaped fiber designs, and geometries based on specialty optical fibers, such as photonic crystal fibers and tilted fiber Bragg gratings. The review will be of benefit to both engineers in the field of optical fiber technology and scientists in the fields of biosensing.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.232 · 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