ArticleMicromachines2023
PreOBP_ML: Machine Learning Algorithms for Prediction of Optical Biosensor Parameters.
Article in Micromachines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Progress in Artificial Intelligence in Biosensor Development: From Bioprobe Design to Fabrication and Signal Analysis.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Integration of computational optics and machine learning for optimized SPR-based carcinoembryonic antigen detection.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Design and analysis of a GaN-based 2D photonic crystal biosensor integrated with machine learning techniques for detection of skin diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Biosensors for Enhanced Detection of Foodborne Pathogens.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Analytical Device and Prediction Method for Urine Component Concentrations.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Design optimization of high-sensitivity PCF-SPR biosensor using machine learning and explainable AI.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop standard optical biosensors, the simulation procedure takes a lot of time. For reducing that enormous amount of time and effort, machine learning might be a better solution. Effective indices, core power, total power, and effective area are the most crucial parameters for evaluating optical sensors. In this study, several machine learning (ML) approaches have been applied to predict those parameters while considering the core radius, cladding radius, pitch, analyte, and wavelength as the input vectors. We have utilized least squares (LS), LASSO, Elastic-Net (ENet), and Bayesian ridge regression (BRR) to make a comparative discussion using a balanced dataset obtained with the COMSOL Multiphysics simulation tool. Furthermore, a more extensive analysis of sensitivity, power fraction, and confinement loss is also demonstrated using the predicted and simulated data. The suggested models were also examined in terms of R2-score, mean average error (MAE), and mean squared error (MSE), with all of the models having an R2-score of more than 0.99, and it was also shown that optical biosensors had a design error rate of less than 3%. This research might pave the way for machine learning-based optimization approaches to be used to improve optical biosensors.
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.