Microfluidic Biochips for Single‐Cell Isolation and Single‐Cell Analysis of Multiomics and Exosomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-cell multiomic and exosome analyses are potent tools in various fields, such as cancer research, immunology, neuroscience, microbiology, and drug development. They facilitate the in-depth exploration of biological systems, providing insights into disease mechanisms and aiding in treatment. Single-cell isolation, which is crucial for single-cell analysis, ensures reliable cell isolation and quality control for further downstream analyses. Microfluidic chips are small lightweight systems that facilitate efficient and high-throughput single-cell isolation and real-time single-cell analysis on- or off-chip. Therefore, most current single-cell isolation and analysis technologies are based on the single-cell microfluidic technology. This review offers comprehensive guidance to researchers across different fields on the selection of appropriate microfluidic chip technologies for single-cell isolation and analysis. This review describes the design principles, separation mechanisms, chip characteristics, and cellular effects of various microfluidic chips available for single-cell isolation. Moreover, this review highlights the implications of using this technology for subsequent analyses, including single-cell multiomic and exosome analyses. Finally, the current challenges and future prospects of microfluidic chip technology are outlined for multiplex single-cell isolation and multiomic and exosome analyses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".