MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384949539 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.1280

https://sifisheriessciences.com/index.php/journal/article/view/1280

2023· article· en· W4384949539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reham Eldessuky Hamed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Communication and Nanonetworks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosensorBiomoleculeComputer scienceNanotechnologyAnalyteBiochemical engineeringChemistryEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biosensors are powerful analytical devices that detect and quantify target analytes in a sample. Due to their high selectivity and sensitivity, enzymes, proteins, antibodies, peptides, and whole cells are commonly used as sensing elements in biosensors. However, the design and optimization of biosensors can be challenging due to the complexity of these biomolecules and their interactions with target analytes. In recent years, computational methods have emerged as powerful tools for designing and optimizing biosensors, enabling researchers to predict the behavior of biomolecules and their interactions with target analytes. Computational fluid mechanics can aid in the design of microfluidic systems for biosensing applications. In contrast, molecular dynamic simulation, molecular docking, quantum mechanics, and virtual screening methods can be used to predict the behavior of biomolecules at the atomic level and study the binding kinetics and thermodynamics of interactions. This paper critically discusses the use of computational methods in biosensors, focusing on enzyme-based, protein-based, antibody-based, peptide-based, and whole-cell-based biosensors. We also review using computational fluid mechanics, molecular dynamic simulation, molecular docking, quantum mechanics, and virtual screening methods in biosensor design and optimization. Additionally, we discuss the applications of these computational methods and biosensors in healthcare, environmental monitoring, food safety, biodefense, and security. Combining computational biosensors and computational methods offers tremendous potential for developing advanced biosensors with enhanced sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. However, challenges remain, such as the need for more accurate models and the integration of experimental and computational approaches. We conclude by discussing the prospects and challenges of computational biosensors and methods, highlighting the need for further research to drive innovation and improve human health and well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6540.702

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.128 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicMolecular Communication and NanonetworksFrench-language works237,207