MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393928612 · doi:10.1002/cbic.202400085

<i>In‐vitro</i> Clinical Diagnostics using RNA‐Cleaving DNAzymes

2024· article· en· W4393928612 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Monsur Ali, Parameswaran Nair, Alfredo Capretta, John D. Brennan

Bibliographic record

VenueChemBioChem · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt Joseph's Health CareMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGrand Challenges CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyDeoxyribozymeNanotechnologyBiochemistryDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last three decades, significant advancements have been made in the development of biosensors and bioassays that use RNA-cleaving DNAzymes (RCDs) as molecular recognition elements. While early examples of RCDs were primarily responsive to metal ions, the past decade has seen numerous RCDs reported for more clinically relevant targets such as bacteria, cancer cells, small metabolites, and protein biomarkers. Over the past 5 years several RCD-based biosensors have also been evaluated using either spiked biological matrixes or patient samples, including blood, serum, saliva, nasal mucus, sputum, urine, and faeces, which is a critical step toward regulatory approval and commercialization of such sensors. In this review, an overview of the methods used to generate RCDs and the properties of key RCDs that have been utilized for in vitro testing is first provided. Examples of RCD-based assays and sensors that have been used to test either spiked biological samples or patient samples are then presented, highlighting assay performance in different biological matrixes. A summary of current prospects and challenges for development of in vitro diagnostic tests incorporating RCDs and an overview of future directions of the field is also provided.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemBioChemSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207