MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403175138 · doi:10.1039/d4an00688g

Integration of paper-based analytical devices with digital microfluidics for colorimetric detection of creatinine

2024· article· en· W4403175138 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa Garcia Velasco, Danielly S. Rocha, Richard P. S. de Campos, Wendell K. T. Coltro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for Nanotechnology
FundersInstituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia de BioanalíticaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de GoiásCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMicrofluidicsComputer scienceColorimetryCreatinineNanotechnologyChemistryMaterials scienceComputer visionBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DMF-PAD and the spectrophotometric reference method. The concentrations of CR determined using both analytical techniques were close to the theoretical values, with the resultant standard deviations of 2-9% and 1-4% for DMF-PADs and spectrophotometry, respectively. Furthermore, the recovery values were within the acceptable range, with DMF-PADs yielding 96-108% and spectrophotometry producing 95-102%. Finally, the greenness of the DMF-PAD and spectrophotometry methods was evaluated using the Analytical Greenness (AGREE) metric software, in which 0.71 and 0.51 scores were obtained, respectively. This indicates that the proposed method presents a higher greenness level, mainly due to its miniaturized characteristics using a smaller volume of reagent and sample and the possibility of automation, thus reducing user exposure to potentially toxic substances. Therefore, the DMF-PADs demonstrated great potential for application in the clinical analysis of creatinine, aiding in routine tests by introducing an automated, simple, and environmentally friendly process.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207