Portable Sensing Devices for Detection of COVID-19: A Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it