MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113877554 · doi:10.1021/acssensors.0c02175

Microfluidic Technology for Antibacterial Resistance Study and Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing: Review and Perspective

2020· review· en· W3113877554 on OpenAlexafffund
Na Qin, Pei Zhao, Emmanuel A. Ho, Gongming Xin, Carolyn L. Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Sensors · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrofluidicsAntibiotic resistanceAntibioticsNanotechnologyRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineIntensive care medicineComputer scienceBiologyMicrobiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review on microfluidic technology for antibacterial resistance study and antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is presented here. Antibiotic resistance has become a global health crisis in recent decades, severely threatening public health, patient care, economic growth, and even national security. It is extremely urgent that antibiotic resistance be well looked into and aggressively combated in order for us to survive this crisis. AST has been routinely utilized in determining bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics and identifying potential resistance. Yet conventional methods for AST are increasingly incompetent due to unsatisfactory test speed, high cost, and deficient reliability. Microfluidics has emerged as a powerful and very promising platform technology that has proven capable of addressing the limitation of conventional methods and advancing AST to a new level. Besides, potential technical challenges that are likely to hinder the development of microfluidic technology aimed at AST are observed and discussed. To conclude, it is noted that (1) the translation of microfluidic innovations from laboratories to be ready AST platforms remains a lengthy journey and (2) ensuring all relevant parties engaged in a collaborative and unified mode is foundational to the successful incubation of commercial microfluidic platforms for AST.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS SensorsSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207