Microfluidic-Assisted <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> Sorting: Current Status and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caenorhabditis elegans ( C. elegans ) has been a popular model organism for several decades since its first discovery of the huge research potential for modeling human diseases and genetics. Sorting is an important means of providing stage- or age-synchronized worm populations for many worm-based bioassays. However, conventional manual techniques for C. elegans sorting are tedious and inefficient, and commercial complex object parametric analyzer and sorter is too expensive and bulky for most laboratories. Recently, the development of lab-on-a-chip (microfluidics) technology has greatly facilitated C. elegans studies where large numbers of synchronized worm populations are required and advances of new designs, mechanisms, and automation algorithms. Most previous reviews have focused on the development of microfluidic devices but lacked the summaries and discussion of the biological research demands of C. elegans , and are hard to read for worm researchers. We aim to comprehensively review the up-to-date microfluidic-assisted C. elegans sorting developments from several angles to suit different background researchers, i.e., biologists and engineers. First, we highlighted the microfluidic C. elegans sorting devices' advantages and limitations compared to the conventional commercialized worm sorting tools. Second, to benefit the engineers, we reviewed the current devices from the perspectives of active or passive sorting, sorting strategies, target populations, and sorting criteria. Third, to benefit the biologists, we reviewed the contributions of sorting to biological research. We expect, by providing this comprehensive review, that each researcher from this multidisciplinary community can effectively find the needed information and, in turn, facilitate future research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".