MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402576823 · doi:10.3390/molecules29184415

Electrospun Nanofiber-Based Biosensors for Foodborne Bacteria Detection

2024· review· en· W4402576823 on OpenAlexafffund
Haoming Yang, Yan Song, Tianxi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiosensorListeria monocytogenesNanofiberPseudomonas putidaElectrospinningBacteriaEscherichia coliSalmonellaNanotechnologyChemistryBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food contamination has emerged as a significant global health concern, posing substantial challenges to the food industry. Bacteria are the primary cause of foodborne diseases. Consequently, it is crucial to develop accurate and efficient sensing platforms to detect foodborne bacteria in food products. Among various detection methods, biosensors have emerged as a promising solution due to their portability, affordability, simplicity, selectivity, sensitivity, and rapidity. Electrospun nanofibers have gained increasing popularity in enhancing biosensor performance. These nanofibers possess a distinctive three-dimensional structure, providing a large surface area and ease of preparation. This review provides an overview of the electrospinning technique, nanofibers and nanofiber-based biosensors. It also explores their mechanisms and applications in the detection of foodborne bacteria such as Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes), Escherichia coli (E. coli), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Pseudomonas putida (P. putida).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207