ReviewBiosensors2022
Living Sample Viability Measurement Methods from Traditional Assays to Nanomotion.
Review in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stain-Free Approach to Determine and Monitor Cell Heath Using Supervised and Unsupervised Image-Based Deep Learning.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
- Accurate and rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing using a machine learning-assisted nanomotion technology platform.Nature communications · 2024Article
- An Optical Fiber-Based Nanomotion Sensor for Rapid Antibiotic and Antifungal Susceptibility Tests.Nano letters · 2024Article
- A simplified version of rapid susceptibility testing of bacteria and yeasts using optical nanomotion detection.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Rapid In Vitro Assessment of Antimicrobial Drug Effect Bridging Clinically Relevant Pharmacokinetics: A Comprehensive Methodology.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Sensors and Techniques for On-Line Determination of Cell Viability in Bioprocess Monitoring.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Nanoprobes for Tumor Theranostics.Biosensors · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Living sample viability measurement is an extremely common process in medical, pharmaceutical, and biological fields, especially drug pharmacology and toxicology detection. Nowadays, there are a number of chemical, optical, and mechanical methods that have been developed in response to the growing demand for simple, rapid, accurate, and reliable real-time living sample viability assessment. In parallel, the development trend of viability measurement methods (VMMs) has increasingly shifted from traditional assays towards the innovative atomic force microscope (AFM) oscillating sensor method (referred to as nanomotion), which takes advantage of the adhesion of living samples to an oscillating surface. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the common VMMs, laying emphasis on their benefits and drawbacks, as well as evaluating the potential utility of VMMs. In addition, we discuss the nanomotion technique, focusing on its applications, sample attachment protocols, and result display methods. Furthermore, the challenges and future perspectives on nanomotion are commented on, mainly emphasizing scientific restrictions and development orientations.
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.