MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W40733668 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.20.4.a100-a

Multiplex Biomarker Detection by ICP‐MS

2006· article· en· W40733668 on OpenAlexafffund
Olga Ornatsky, Vladimir Baranov, Dmitry Bandura, Scott D. Tanner, John E. Dick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Genomics Institute
KeywordsMultiplexBiomarkerComputational biologyBiologyBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel application of ICP‐MS to cell biology is presented. This work details a method of multiplex cellular antigen determination using ICP‐MS‐linked metal‐tagged immunophenotyping. Expression of intracellular oncogenic kinase BCR/Abl, myeloid cell surface antigen CD33, human stem cell factor receptor c ‐Kit and integrin receptor VLA‐4 were investigated using human leukemic cell lines. Antigens to which specific antibodies are available and are distinguishably tagged can be determined simultaneously, or multiplexed. Four commercially available tags (Au, Sm, Eu, and Tb) conjugated to secondary antibodies enable a 4‐plex assay assuming that the primary antibodies are not cross‐reactive. Depending on the abundance of antigens it was possible to detect as little as 1000 cells in a mixed cell population. Results obtained by ICP‐MS were compared with data from conventional flow cytometry. ICP‐MS as an analytical detector possesses several advantages that enhance the performance of immunoassays, which are discussed in detail. Although multiplexing using metal‐conjugated reagents is in a very early stage of research and feasibility studies, it is already apparent that more than four could be accurately detected simultaneously using the ICP‐MS instrument.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207