ArticleBiomedical microdevices2024
Integrating optical and electrical sensing with machine learning for advanced particle characterization.
Article in Biomedical microdevices, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microfluidic Assays for CD4 T Lymphocyte Counting: A Review.Biosensors · 2025Review
- A Thorough Review of Emerging Technologies in Micro- and Nanochannel Fabrication: Limitations, Applications, and Comparison.Micromachines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Particle classification plays a crucial role in various scientific and technological applications, such as differentiating between bacteria and viruses in healthcare applications or identifying and classifying cancer cells. This technique requires accurate and efficient analysis of particle properties. In this study, we investigated the integration of electrical and optical features through a multimodal approach for particle classification. Machine learning classifier algorithms were applied to evaluate the impact of combining these measurements. Our results demonstrate the superiority of the multimodal approach over analyzing electrical or optical features independently. We achieved an average test accuracy of 94.9% by integrating both modalities, compared to 66.4% for electrical features alone and 90.7% for optical features alone. This highlights the complementary nature of electrical and optical information and its potential for enhancing classification performance. By leveraging electrical sensing and optical imaging techniques, our multimodal approach provides deeper insights into particle properties and offers a more comprehensive understanding of complex biological systems.
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.