Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35761002›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2022

Evolution in Automatized Detection of Cells: Advances in Magnetic Microcytometers for Cancer Cells.

Alexandre Chícharo, Diogo Miguel Caetano, Susana Cardoso, Paulo Freitas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexandre ChícharoInternational Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory, Braga, Portugal. alexandre.chicharo@inl.int.
Diogo Miguel CaetanoInstituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores - Microsistemas e Nanotecnologias, INESC-MN, Lisbon, Portugal.
Susana CardosoInstituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores - Microsistemas e Nanotecnologias, INESC-MN, Lisbon, Portugal.
Paulo FreitasInternational Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory, Braga, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flow cytometers are well-established tools with fundamental importance in biology and medicine to examine and identify cell populations, density, size distributions, compositions, and disease diagnosis and monitoring. Still, these devices are expensive with a low level of integration for sample preparation. Miniaturized microfluidic cytometers, i.e., microcytometers, for monitoring cells in a wide range of biological samples are currently being developed, providing more affordable and integrated solutions. Several detection methods have been developed and applied in microcytometers such as electrical, optical, and magnetic sensing techniques, which are integrated with microfluidic technology. Magnetic microcytometers present several advantages when compared to optical systems such as the fact that these devices provide more stable labeling by using magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) or beads (MBs) instead of fluorophores. In this chapter, we explore the evolution of the automation of whole cell detection and enumeration that led to the development of microcytometers and particularly examine the anatomy of magnetic microcytometers applied to cancer research. We then give an overview of the challenges of Circulating Tumor Cells enrichment and enumeration, and the progress of magnetic microcytometers in this field.

Indexed as

MicrofluidicsNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingFlow CytometryHumansMagnetic PhenomenaMagneticsCirculating Tumor CellsMagnetic NanoparticlesMagnetic sensorsMicrocytometersMicrofluidics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.