MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131159058 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2021.3059970

Portable Sensing Devices for Detection of COVID-19: A Review

2021· review· en· W3131159058 on OpenAlexaff
Deniz Sadighbayan, Ebrahim Ghafar‐Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint-of-care testingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)NanotechnologyMedicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Immunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus pandemic is the most challenging incident that people have faced in recent years. Despite the time-consuming and expensive conventional methods, point-of-care diagnostics have a crucial role in deterrence, timely detection, and intensive care of the disease's progress. Hence, this detrimental health emergency persuaded researchers to accelerate the development of highly-scalable diagnostic devices to control the propagation of the virus even in the least developed countries. The strategies exploited for detecting COVID-19 stem from the already designed systems for studying other maladies, particularly viral infections. The present report reviews not only the novel advances in portable diagnostic devices for recognizing COVID-19, but also the previously existing biosensors for detecting other viruses. It discusses their adaptability for identifying surface proteins, whole viruses, viral genomes, host antibodies, and other biomarkers in biological samples. The prominence of different types of biosensors such as electrochemical, optical, and electrical for detecting low viral loads have been underlined. Thus, it is anticipated that this review will assist scientists who have embarked on a competition to come up with more efficient and marketable in-situ test kits for identifying the infection even in its incubation time without sample pretreatment. Finally, a conclusion is provided to highlight the importance of such an approach for monitoring people to combat the spread of such contagious diseases.

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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207