Digital immunoassay for biomarker concentration quantification using solid-state nanopores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-molecule counting is the most accurate and precise method for determining the concentration of a biomarker in solution and is leading to the emergence of digital diagnostic platforms enabling precision medicine. In principle, solid-state nanopores-fully electronic sensors with single-molecule sensitivity-are well suited to the task. Here we present a digital immunoassay scheme capable of reliably quantifying the concentration of a target protein in complex biofluids that overcomes specificity, sensitivity, and consistency challenges associated with the use of solid-state nanopores for protein sensing. This is achieved by employing easily-identifiable DNA nanostructures as proxies for the presence ("1") or absence ("0") of the target protein captured via a magnetic bead-based sandwich immunoassay. As a proof-of-concept, we demonstrate quantification of the concentration of thyroid-stimulating hormone from human serum samples down to the high femtomolar range. Further optimization to the method will push sensitivity and dynamic range, allowing for development of precision diagnostic tools compatible with point-of-care format.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".