ArticleBiosensors2022
Bead Number Effect in a Magnetic-Beads-Based Digital Microfluidic Immunoassay.
Article in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Size Effects of Silver Nanoparticles and Magnetic Beads on Silver-Gold Galvanic Exchange in Aptamer-Based Electrochemical Assays.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Emerging Trends in Integrated Digital Microfluidic Platforms for Next-Generation Immunoassays.Micromachines · 2024Review
- Detection of Interleukin-1 β (IL-1β) in Single Human Blastocyst-Conditioned Medium Using Ultrasensitive Bead-Based Digital Microfluidic Chip and Its Relationship with Embryonic Implantation Potential.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Aptamer-functionalized polydiacetylene biosensor for the detection of three foodborne pathogens.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2024Article
- Magnetic Bead Manipulation in Microfluidic Chips for Biological Application.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In a biomedical diagnosis with a limited sample volume and low concentration, droplet-based microfluidics, also called digital microfluidics, becomes a very attractive approach. Previously, our group developed a magnetic-beads-based digital microfluidic immunoassay with a bead number of around 100, requiring less than 1 μL of sample volume to achieve a pg/mL level limit of detection (LOD). However, the bead number in each measurement was not the same, causing an unstable coefficient of variation (CV) in the calibration curve. Here, we investigated whether a fixed number of beads in this bead-based digital microfluidic immunoassay could provide more stable results. First, the bead screening chips were developed to extract exactly 100, 49, and 25 magnetic beads with diameters of less than 6 μm. Then, four calibration curves were established. One calibration curve was constructed by using varying bead numbers (50-160) in the process. The other three calibration curves used a fixed number of beads, (100, 49, and 25). The results indicated that the CVs for a fixed number of beads were evidently smaller than the CVs for varying bead numbers, especially in the range of 1 pg/mL to 100 pg/mL, where the CVs for 100 beads were less than 10%. Furthermore, the calculated LOD, based on the composite calibration curves, could be reduced by three orders, from 3.0 pg/mL (for the unfixed bead number) to 0.0287 pg/mL (for 100 beads). However, when the bead numbers were too high (more than 500) or too low (25 or fewer), the bead manipulation for aggregation became more difficult in the magnetic-beads-based digital microfluidic immunoassay chip.
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.