↓ Skip to main content

A portable centrifugal analyser for liver function screening

Overview of attention for article published in Biosensors & Bioelectronics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A portable centrifugal analyser for liver function screening
Published in
Biosensors & Bioelectronics, January 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.bios.2014.01.031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles E. Nwankire, Monika Czugala, Robert Burger, Kevin J. Fraser, Tríona M. O׳Connell, Thomas Glennon, Blessing E. Onwuliri, Isikaku E. Nduaguibe, Dermot Diamond, Jens Ducrée

Abstract

Mortality rates of up to 50% have been reported after liver failure due to drug-induced hepatotoxicity and certain viral infections (Gao et al., 2008). These adverse conditions frequently affect HIV and tuberculosis patients on regular medication in resource-poor settings. Here, we report full integration of sample preparation with the read-out of a 5-parameter liver assay panel (LAP) on a portable, easy-to-use, fast and cost-efficient centrifugal microfluidic analysis system (CMAS). Our unique, dissolvable-film based centrifugo-pneumatic valving was employed to provide sample-to-answer fashion automation for plasma extraction (from finger-prick of blood), metering and aliquoting into separate reaction chambers for parallelized colorimetric quantification during rotation. The entire LAP completes in less than 20 min while using only a tenth the reagent volumes when compared with standard hospital laboratory tests. Accuracy of in-situ liver function screening was validated by 96 separate tests with an average coefficient of variance (CV) of 7.9% compared to benchtop and hospital lab tests. Unpaired two sample statistical t-tests were used to compare the means of CMAS and benchtop reader, on one hand; and CMAS and hospital tests on the other. The results demonstrate no statistical difference between the respective means with 94% and 92% certainty of equivalence, respectively. The portable platform thus saves significant time, labour and costs compared to established technologies, and therefore complies with typical restrictions on lab infrastructure, maintenance, operator skill and costs prevalent in many field clinics of the developing world. It has been successfully deployed to a centralised lab in Nigeria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 104 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 26%
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 30 27%
Chemistry 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Physics and Astronomy 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 22 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Biosensors & Bioelectronics
#4,682
of 6,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,856
of 323,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biosensors & Bioelectronics
#84
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.