Advances in multiplexed techniques for the detection and quantification of microRNAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MicroRNA detection is currently a crucial analytical chemistry challenge: almost 2000 papers were referenced in PubMed in 2018 and 2019 for the keywords "miRNA detection method". MicroRNAs are potential biomarkers for multiple diseases including cancers, neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases. Since miRNAs are stably released in bodily fluids, they are of prime interest for the development of non-invasive diagnosis methods, such as liquid biopsies. Their detection is however challenging, as high levels of sensitivity, specificity and robustness are required. The analysis also needs to be quantitative, since the aim is to detect miRNA concentration changes. Moreover, a high multiplexing capability is also of crucial importance, since the clinical potential of miRNAs probably lays in our ability to perform parallel mapping of multiple miRNA concentrations and recognize typical disease signature from this profile. A plethora of biochemical innovative detection methods have been reported recently and some of them provide new solutions to the problem of sensitive multiplex detection. In this review, we propose to analyze in particular the new developments in multiplexed approaches to miRNA detection. The main aspects of these methods (including sensitivity and specificity) will be analyzed, with a particular focus on the demonstrated multiplexing capability and potential of each of these methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".