MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092410196 · doi:10.1088/2516-1091/abbf5e

Critical review on where CRISPR meets molecular diagnostics

2020· article· en· W3092410196 on OpenAlexafffund
Anson Lau, Carolyn L. Ren, Luke P. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Biomedical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCRISPRNucleic acid detectionMolecular diagnosticsComputational biologyComputer scienceTrans-activating crRNANanotechnologyGenome editingNucleic acidBiologyBioinformaticsGeneticsGeneMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Simple yet powerful clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) technology has led to the advent of numerous developments in life sciences, biotechnology, therapeutics, and molecular diagnostics, enabled by gene editing capability. By exploiting the CRISPR-Cas system’s nucleic acid sequence detection abilities, CRISPR-based molecular diagnostics have been developed. Here, we review the development of rapid, sensitive, and inexpensive CRISPR-based molecular diagnostics. We introduce the transition of CRISPR technology to precision molecular diagnostic devices from tube to device. Next, we discuss the various nucleic acid (NA) detection methods by CRISPR. We address the importance of significant sample preparation steps for a future sample-to-answer solution, which is lacking in current CRISPR-based molecular diagnostic technology. Lastly, we discuss the extension of CRISPR-based molecular diagnostics to various critical applications. We envision CRISPR technology holds great promise for widespread use in precision NA detection applications after particular technical challenges are overcome.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207