ReviewAnalytical chemistry2014
Perspective on microfluidic cell separation: a solved problem?
Review in Analytical chemistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mild Quantitative One Step Removal of Macrophages from Cocultures with Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells Using Thermoresponsive Poly(Di(Ethylene Glycol)Methyl Ether Methacrylate) Brushes.Macromolecular bioscience · 2024Article
- Microfluidics for Neuronal Cell and Circuit Engineering.Chemical reviews · 2022Review
- Photoinduced reconfiguration to control the protein-binding affinity of azobenzene-cyclized peptides.Journal of materials chemistry. B · 2020Article
- Dielectrophoretic Microfluidic Device for Separating Microparticles Based on Size with Sub-Micron Resolution.Micromachines · 2020Article
- Microfluidic platform for selective microparticle parking and paired particle isolation in droplet arrays.Biomicrofluidics · 2018Article
- Enabling Microfluidics: from Clean Rooms to Makerspaces.Trends in biotechnology · 2017Review
- Translating microfluidics: Cell separation technologies and their barriers to commercialization.Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry · 2017Review
- Tracking metastatic breast cancer: the future of biology in biosensors.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purification and sorting of cells using microfluidic methodologies has been a remarkably active area of research over the past decade. Much of the scientific and technological work associated with microfluidic cell separation has been driven by needs in clinical diagnostics and therapeutic monitoring, most notably in the context of circulating tumor cells. The last several years have seen advances in a broad range of separation modalities ranging from miniaturized analogs of established techniques such as fluorescence- and magnetic-activated cell sorting (FACS and MACS, respectively), to more specialized approaches based on affinity, dielectrophoretic mobility, and inertial properties of cells. With several of these technologies nearing commercialization, there is a sense that the field of microfluidic cell separation has achieved a high level of maturity over an unusually short span of time. In this Perspective, we set the stage by describing major scientific and technological advances in this field and ask what the future holds. While many scientific questions remain unanswered and new compelling questions will undoubtedly arise, the relative maturity of this field poses some unique challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.