Microfluidic-Based Oxygen (O2) Sensors for On-Chip Monitoring of Cell, Tissue and Organ Metabolism
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
Oxygen (O2) quantification is essential for assessing cell metabolism, and its consumption in cell culture is an important indicator of cell viability. Recent advances in microfluidics have made O2 sensing a crucial feature for organ-on-chip (OOC) devices for various biomedical applications. OOC O2 sensors can be categorized, based on their transducer type, into two main groups, optical and electrochemical. In this review, we provide an overview of on-chip O2 sensors integrated with the OOC devices and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. Recent innovations in optical O2 sensors integrated with OOCs are discussed in four main categories: (i) basic luminescence-based sensors; (ii) microparticle-based sensors; (iii) nano-enabled sensors; and (iv) commercial probes and portable devices. Furthermore, we discuss recent advancements in electrochemical sensors in five main categories: (i) novel configurations in Clark-type sensors; (ii) novel materials (e.g., polymers, O2 scavenging and passivation materials); (iii) nano-enabled electrochemical sensors; (iv) novel designs and fabrication techniques; and (v) commercial and portable electrochemical readouts. Together, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the current advances in the design, fabrication and application of optical and electrochemical O2 sensors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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