Fluorescent pH‐sensing bandage for point‐of‐care wound diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a serious and prevalent complication of diabetes. Current diagnostic options are limited to macroscopic wound analysis such as wound size, depth, and infection. Molecular diagnostics promise to improve DFU diagnosis, staging, and assessment of treatment response. Here, we developed a rapid and easy‐to‐use fluorescent pH‐sensing bandage for wound diagnostics. In a fluorescent dye screen, we identified pyranine as the lead compound due to its suitable pH‐sensing properties in the clinically relevant pH range of 6–9. To minimize the release of this dye into the wound bed, we screened a library of ionic microparticles and found a strong adhesion of the anionic dye to a cationic polymeric microparticle. These dye‐loaded microparticles showed a strong fluorescence response in the clinically relevant pH range of 6–9 and a dye release below 1% after 1 day in biological media. The dye‐loaded microparticles were subsequently encapsulated in a calcium alginate hydrogel to minimize the interaction of the microparticles with the wound tissue. This pH‐sensing diagnostic wound dressing was tested on full thickness dorsal wounds of mice, and a linear fluorescence response ( R 2 = 0.9909) to clinically relevant pH values was observed. These findings encourage further development of this pH‐sensing system for molecular diagnostics in DFUs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".