Recent advances in label-free optical, electrochemical, and electronic biosensors for glioma biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gliomas are the most commonly occurring primary brain tumor with poor prognosis and high mortality rate. Currently, the diagnostic and monitoring options for glioma mainly revolve around imaging techniques, which often provide limited information and require supervisory expertise. Liquid biopsy is a great alternative or complementary monitoring protocol that can be implemented along with other standard diagnosis protocols. However, standard detection schemes for sampling and monitoring biomarkers in different biological fluids lack the necessary sensitivity and ability for real-time analysis. Lately, biosensor-based diagnostic and monitoring technology has attracted significant attention due to several advantageous features, including high sensitivity and specificity, high-throughput analysis, minimally invasive, and multiplexing ability. In this review article, we have focused our attention on glioma and presented a literature survey summarizing the diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers associated with glioma. Further, we discussed different biosensory approaches reported to date for the detection of specific glioma biomarkers. Current biosensors demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity, which can be used for point-of-care devices or liquid biopsies. However, for real clinical applications, these biosensors lack high-throughput and multiplexed analysis, which can be achieved via integration with microfluidic systems. We shared our perspective on the current state-of-the-art different biosensor-based diagnostic and monitoring technologies reported and the future research scopes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review focusing on biosensors for glioma detection, and it is anticipated that the review will offer a new pathway for the development of such biosensors and related diagnostic platforms.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".