MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283272866 · doi:10.3390/chemosensors10070234

Quantification of a COVID-19 Antibody Assay Using a Lateral Flow Test and a Cell Phone

2022· article· en· W4283272866 on OpenAlexafffund
Pearl Thompson, Ana Lívia de Carvalho Bovolato, Gisela Ibáñez-Redín, Alexandre G. Brolo

Bibliographic record

VenueChemosensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAntibodyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SalivaDetection limitFlow cytometrySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)NitrocelluloseChromatographyCellulosePhoneVirologyMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringChemistryImmunologyMedicinePathologyBiochemistryInfectious disease (medical specialty)Membrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although several biomedical assays have been developed to screen for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, very few can be completed without drawing blood. We developed a rapid lateral flow screening tool that used saliva samples and yielded rapid results that could be quantified using a cell phone. This assay provided the sensitive detection of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within 10 min. We started by synthesising, modifying, and characterising gold nanoparticles. Using these particles as a coloured label, we developed a lateral flow strip made of nitrocellulose, glass fibre, and cellulose material. We quantified our visual results using pictures acquired with a cell phone and calculated a limit of detection of 4 ng/mL of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemosensorsSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207