Capabilities of Double-Resonance LPG and SPR Methods for Hypersensitive Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Structural Proteins: A Comparative Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The danger of the emergence of new viral diseases and their rapid spread demands apparatuses for continuous rapid monitoring in real time. This requires the creation of new bioanalytical methods that overcome the shortcomings of existing ones and are applicable for point-of-care diagnostics. For this purpose, a variety of biosensors have been developed and tested in proof-of-concept studies, but none of them have been introduced for commercial use so far. Given the importance of the problem, in this study, long-period grating (LPG) and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensors, based on antibody detection, were examined, and their capabilities for SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins detection were established. Supersensitive detections of structural proteins in the order of several femtomoles were achieved by the LPG method, while the SPR method demonstrated a sensitivity of about one hundred femtomoles. The studied biosensors are compatible in sensitivity with ELISA and rapid antigen tests but, in contrast, they are quantitative, which makes them applicable for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection detection, especially during the early stages of viral replication.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it