MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200360057 · doi:10.1002/advs.202104033

Extracellular Biomarkers of Inner Ear Disease and Their Potential for Point‐of‐Care Diagnostics

2021· review· en· W4200360057 on OpenAlexafffund
Sahar Sadat Mahshid, Aliaa Higazi, Jacqueline M. Ogier, Alain Dabdoub

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKrembil Foundation
KeywordsDiagnostic biomarkerPoint-of-care testingMolecular diagnosticsInner earDiseaseDiagnostic testMedicineComputational biologyBiomarkerPoint of careBioinformaticsBiological fluidsPathologyIntensive care medicineBiologyDiagnostic accuracyChemistryInternal medicineBiochemistryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid diagnostic testing has become a mainstay of patient care, using easily obtained samples such as blood or urine to facilitate sample analysis at the point-of-care. These tests rely on the detection of disease or organ-specific biomarkers that have been well characterized for a particular disorder. Currently, there is no rapid diagnostic test for hearing loss, which is one of the most prevalent sensory disorders in the world. In this review, potential biomarkers for inner ear-related disorders, their detection, and quantification in bodily fluids are described. The authors discuss lesion-specific changes in cell-free deoxyribonucleic acids (DNAs), micro-ribonucleic acids (microRNAs), proteins, and metabolites, in addition to recent biosensor advances that may facilitate rapid and precise detection of these molecules. Ultimately, these biomarkers may be used to provide accurate diagnostics regarding the site of damage in the inner ear, providing practical information for individualized therapy and assessment of treatment efficacy in the future.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced ScienceSame topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207