MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317438718 · doi:10.34133/cbsystems.0011

Microfluidic-Assisted <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> Sorting: Current Status and Future Prospects

2023· article· en· W4317438718 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCyborg and Bionic Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersKey ProgrammeXi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool UniversityGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsSortingCaenorhabditis elegansComputer scienceMicrofluidicsSorting algorithmBiologyComputational biologyData scienceNanotechnologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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