MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415749914 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.30.685461

Microfluidic sieve and detector for rapid ultrasensitive assays with single-molecule sensitivity

2025· preprint· W4415749914 on OpenAlexaff
Geunyong Kim, Molly L. Shen, Andy Ng, David Juncker

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicNanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyteMicrofluidicsDetectorSieve (category theory)LimitingSensitivity (control systems)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of ultrasensitive assays enabled many new research and clinical applications, but the time-to-result is hours and has not significantly improved over time, limiting their potential. We introduce the microfluidic sieve and detector (MSD) that can sieve 200 microlitres in just one minute, and quantify captured analytes in four minutes, down to zeptomolar (10 -19 M) concentration. The MSD comprises half a million 8-μm-diameter pores that bind analytes upon Brownian motion-induced wall collision. Digital sandwich assays are completed by sequentially flowing the sample, reagents, partitioning the pores, and digitally revealing single ‘trapped’ analytes by enzymatic amplification. The MSD tests are specific and reproducible, exhibit a large dynamic range, and are easy-to-use, affordable, tuneable and versatile, enabling measurement of different proteins including influenza A nucleoprotein in clinical samples, and even nucleic acids while being both faster and more sensitive than PCR. As such, the MSD could open a new chapter for analysis and diagnostics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNanopore and Nanochannel Transport StudiesFrench-language works237,207