MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281961566 · doi:10.3390/ijtm2020017

CRISPR-Based Diagnostics for Point-of-Care Viral Detection

2022· article· en· W4281961566 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander I. Mosa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Translational Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCRISPRPoint-of-care testingPoint of careMolecular diagnosticsComputational biologyComputer scienceMultiplexRisk analysis (engineering)StandardizationNanotechnologyBiochemical engineeringData scienceBiologyBioinformaticsMedicineEngineeringGeneticsImmunologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point-of-care detection of viral infection is required for effective contact-tracing, epidemiological surveillance, and linkage to care. Traditional diagnostic platforms relying on either antigen detection or nucleic amplification are limited by sensitivity and the need for costly laboratory infrastructure, respectively. Recently, CRISPR-based diagnostics have emerged as an alternative, combining equipment light workflows with high specificity and sensitivity. However, as a nascent technology, several outstanding challenges to widespread field deployment remain. These include the need for pre-detection amplification of target molecules, the lack of standardization in sample preparation and reagent composition, and only equivocal assessments of the unit-economics relative to traditional antigen or polymerase chain reaction-based diagnostics. This review summarizes recent advances with the potential to overcome existing translational barriers, describes the events in CRISPR-based detection of target molecules, and offers perspective on how multiple approaches can be combined to decrease the limit of detection without introducing pre-amplification.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 head0.326
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Translational MedicineSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207