ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Improvement of bioanalytical parameters through automation: suitability of a hand-like robotic system.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A mobile robot bridging manual and automated bioscientific workflows by applying the Swiss army knife principle.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Commercial automation systems for small- and medium-sized laboratories, including research environments, are often complex to use. For liquid handling systems (LHS), development is required not only for the robot's movements but also for adapting the bioanalytical method to the automated system. This study investigates whether a more human-like automation strategy-using a robotic system (RS)-is more suitable for research laboratories than a professional automation approach utilizing a commercial automated LHS. We conducted a series of measurements for protein determination using a Bradford assay manually, with a fully automated LHS, and with our human-like RS. Although the hand-like RS approach requires more than twice the time of the LHS, it achieved the best standard deviation in this setup (RS = 0.5, manual = 0.71, LHS = 0.86). Due to the low limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ), most protein samples could be quantified with the RS (samples below LOQ = 9.7%, LOD = 0.23; LOQ = 0.25) compared to manual (samples below LOQ = 28.8%, LOD = 0.24; LOQ = 0.26) and the LHS (samples below LOQ = 36.1%, LOD = 0.27; LOQ = 0.31). In another time-dependent enzymatic assay test, the RS achieved results comparable to the manual method and the LHS, although the required time could be a constraint for short incubation times. Our results demonstrate that a more hand-like automation system closely models the manual process, leading easier to accurate bioanalytical results. We conclude that such a system could be more suitable for typical research environments than a complex LHS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39207494What 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.