Artificial Intelligence in Point-of-Care Biosensing: Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into point-of-care (POC) biosensing has the potential to revolutionize diagnostic methodologies by offering rapid, accurate, and accessible health assessment directly at the patient level. This review paper explores the transformative impact of AI technologies on POC biosensing, emphasizing recent computational advancements, ongoing challenges, and future prospects in the field. We provide an overview of core biosensing technologies and their use at the POC, highlighting ongoing issues and challenges that may be solved with AI. We follow with an overview of AI methodologies that can be applied to biosensing, including machine learning algorithms, neural networks, and data processing frameworks that facilitate real-time analytical decision-making. We explore the applications of AI at each stage of the biosensor development process, highlighting the diverse opportunities beyond simple data analysis procedures. We include a thorough analysis of outstanding challenges in the field of AI-assisted biosensing, focusing on the technical and ethical challenges regarding the widespread adoption of these technologies, such as data security, algorithmic bias, and regulatory compliance. Through this review, we aim to emphasize the role of AI in advancing POC biosensing and inform researchers, clinicians, and policymakers about the potential of these technologies in reshaping global healthcare landscapes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".