Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Deep learning-enhanced chemiluminescence vertical flow assay for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A paper-based chemiluminescence vertical flow assay claims a 0.16 pg/mL troponin detection limit and, on 66 blinded samples, matches an FDA-cleared analyzer at r = 0.984.

desk verdict Serious engineering, plausible clinical validation, but the headline LoD is an extrapolation below the lowest calibrator and needs real low-concentration measurements before the sensitivity claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08945 v1 pith:SWY77IIG submitted 2024-12-12 physics.med-ph physics.app-phphysics.bio-ph

Gyeo-Re Han , Artem Goncharov , Merve Eryilmaz , Shun Ye , Hyou-Arm Joung , Rajesh Ghosh , Emily Ngo , Aoi Tomoeda
show 6 more authors
Yena Lee Kevin Ngo Elizabeth Melton Omai B. Garner Dino Di Carlo Aydogan Ozcan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.app-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords cardiactroponinIchemiluminescenceverticalflowassaypoint-of-caretestinghigh-sensitivitydeeplearningneuralnetworkquantificationpaper-basedbiosensor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing — the blood measurement that anchors heart-attack diagnosis — is currently confined to central laboratories because only large benchtop analyzers can see troponin at the few-picograms-per-milliliter level. This paper claims to break that confinement with a chemiluminescence vertical flow assay: a paper-based test in which serum flows downward through stacked membranes and the light from a chemical reaction is captured by a $222 handheld reader and interpreted by a four-network deep-learning pipeline. The central claims are a detection limit of 0.16 pg/mL, a dynamic range spanning six orders of magnitude, results in 25 minutes from 50 µL of serum, and a Pearson correlation of 0.984 against an FDA-cleared analyzer on 66 blinded patient samples. If these numbers hold, troponin testing that currently requires a benchtop instrument in a central laboratory could instead be performed affordably at the bedside, in small clinics, and in low-resource settings.

What carries the argument

Three engineered pieces carry the argument. The first is the conjugate: 15 nm gold nanoparticles decorated with PolyHRP-Streptavidin, a polymer that packs many horseradish-peroxidase enzymes per binding event, plus biotinylated anti-cTnI antibodies; the paper measures this as roughly a 210-fold signal gain over a conventional single-HRP conjugate and roughly a 3400-fold gain over the same conjugate's colorimetric readout. The second is the cartridge: a tray that transfers the sensing membrane from the absorbent-pad assembly used for the immunoassay and washing to a flat plastic support stage for imaging, so the chemiluminescence reagent stops flowing and the signal saturates stably; this change cut the imaging coefficient of variation from 22.9% to 4.6%. The third is the computational pipeline: one classifier network sorts each sample into a concentration band (below 40 pg/mL, 40–1000 pg/mL, or above 1000 pg/mL), three dedicated quantifier networks then report the concentration, and a sample is flagged as indeterminate if the classification and quantification stages disagree. The stated detection limit is computed by the standard formula $\mathrm{LoD} = \mathrm{LoB} + 1.645 \times \mathrm{SD}$, where the limit of blank is the mean blank signal plus 1.645 times its standard deviation, with both values converted to concentration through the calibration curve $y = 0.0147 x^{0.4043}$ fitted to spiked serum from 0.5 to $10^5$ pg/mL.

What would settle it

Spike cTnI-free serum at 0.1, 0.16, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 pg/mL, run each level in at least five replicates through the CL-VFA under the paper's protocol, and check whether the mean signals follow the calibration curve $y = 0.0147 x^{0.4043}$ and remain statistically separable from the blank. If the power law flattens or low-end variance grows below 0.5 pg/mL, the claimed limit of detection does not hold; if the signals track the curve, the extrapolation is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that four components — a paper vertical-flow immunoassay, a polymerized-enzyme (PolyHRP) gold-nanoparticle conjugate, a Raspberry Pi-based chemiluminescence reader, and a cascaded set of four fully connected neural networks — bring laboratory-grade high-sensitivity troponin I measurement to a portable, low-cost format. Stated on the assay's own terms: it quantifies cTnI across six orders of magnitude with a limit of detection of 0.16 pg/mL, an average coefficient of variation below 15%, and blinded-test agreement with an FDA-approved clinical analyzer of $r = 0.984$ on 66 patient samples. The paper further claims that the neural-network architecture is what holds accuracy together across that range: the classifier-plus-three-quantifiers cascade outperformed single-model, power-fitting, random-forest, and logistic-regression baselines on the same blind set. The intended consequence is that the formal criteria for a high-sensitivity troponin assay — a coefficient of variation no worse than 10% at the 99th-percentile cutoff and the ability to detect low levels in more than half of healthy people — can be met without a benchtop instrument.

Load-bearing premise

The headline 0.16 pg/mL detection limit, computed in Section 2.5, is an extrapolation: the calibration curve $y = 0.0147 x^{0.4043}$ was fitted to spiked-serum signals from 0.5 to $10^5$ pg/mL, and the same fitted curve is used both to define the blank-equivalent intensity and to convert it into a concentration, with no sample near 0.16 pg/mL ever measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Point-of-care triage of suspected heart attacks becomes feasible: the paper argues its 0.16 pg/mL sensitivity supports a 1-hour confirmatory re-test, down from the usual 2–3 hours, and enables a 0-hour rule-out for patients with no initial troponin elevation.
  • The cost structure changes the accessibility argument: roughly $4.25 per test at laboratory scale (projected below $1–2 at production scale) and about $222 for the reader, against benchtop analyzers that cost tens of thousands of dollars.
  • The assay runs on 50 µL of serum per test and completes in 25 minutes, with computation adding less than 0.5 seconds per sample.
  • Because the sensing membrane carries nine reaction spots by design, the same platform can be extended to multiplexed panels of cardiac biomarkers in a single test.
  • The authors state that adding rapid plasma or serum extraction from whole blood is the planned next step for distributed clinics and other point-of-care sites.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the 0.16 pg/mL figure is extrapolated below the lowest calibrator, the most direct next experiment is measuring spikes between 0.1 and 0.5 pg/mL; the assay's true low-end behavior is a standing prediction of the paper's calibration curve.
  • If the extrapolation holds, the practical limit on sensitivity shifts from the enzyme chemistry to the variance of the blank and negative-control spots — a testable consequence of the paper's own finding that digital quality control and signal averaging materially change classification accuracy.
  • The three blind-test samples near the clinical cut-off (ground truth 32–37 pg/mL) were read as 71–105 pg/mL, so the operating point of the classifier around the 40 pg/mL decision boundary is the place to look for clinically meaningful error before deployment.
  • The platform's components are largely biomarker-agnostic, so swapping the antibody pair for a different cardiac protein (for example, NT-proBNP or D-dimer) is a cheap test of whether the same sensitivity gains transfer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a chemiluminescence vertical flow assay (CL-VFA) for cardiac troponin I (cTnI), combining a paper-based sensing membrane, an AuNP-PolyHRP detection conjugate, a Raspberry Pi-based portable reader, a tray-based cartridge for stable chemiluminescence imaging, and a cascade of four neural networks for concentration inference. The authors claim an LoD of 0.16 pg/mL, an average CV below 15%, a six-order-of-magnitude dynamic range, and blinded clinical agreement with an FDA-cleared analyzer (Pearson r = 0.984 on 66 samples). The assay operates on 50 µL of serum in 25 minutes with an estimated per-test cost of $4.25.

Significance. If the analytical claims hold, the engineering contributions are substantial: the tray-based cartridge reduces imaging CV from 22.9% to 4.6%, the portable reader outperforms a benchtop system in detection cut-off, and the blinded clinical evaluation against a clinical-grade analyzer is a strength. The paper also includes detailed assay protocols, a cost model, and a fair comparison between neural-network and power-law quantification. However, the headline LoD is not directly measured but extrapolated below the lowest calibrator, and the clinical validation does not quantitatively confirm low-concentration performance below 4 pg/mL. Therefore, the significance of the sensitivity claim is currently limited by the supporting evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.5] The LoD of 0.16 pg/mL is derived by extrapolating the power-law calibration y=0.0147x^0.4043, which is fitted to spiked serum from 0.5 to 10^5 pg/mL, down to concentrations below the lowest calibrator. The fitted curve has no blank-offset term, yet the reported mean blank signal is 0.0046, so the model is not constrained to describe the blank; inverting this curve to convert the LoB intensity into concentration is therefore an unvalidated extrapolation. In addition, the SDs used for LoB and LoD come from triplicate measurements (Figure 3c), well below the CLSI EP17 recommendation of at least 20 replicates, leaving the Gaussian assumption and SD stability near the blank untested. The abstract's 'detection limit of 0.16 pg/mL' and the 'order of magnitude' sensitivity claim are not supported by directly measured data; the authors should either measure samples near 0.16 pg/mL with an adequate number of replicates and report a formal limit of quantification, or explicitly present the value as a model-based extrapolation with uncertainty.
  2. [Section 2.6] The clinical validation does not provide quantitative confirmation of low-concentration performance. Samples with ground truth below 4 pg/mL are excluded from the Pearson r and CV calculations because they lack quantitative labels, and the DNNQ<40 training set assigns such samples a label of 4 pg/mL with an asymmetric MSLE loss that only penalizes overestimates. The blind test also shows that three samples with true cTnI concentrations of 32–37 pg/mL were misclassified and predicted as 71–105 pg/mL, indicating errors of roughly two- to threefold near the clinical threshold. Thus, the claim that the CL-VFA 'accurately measured cTnI concentrations in patient samples' at low levels is not established; the authors should report per-range agreement (e.g., Bland-Altman limits or percentage within ±20% for the 4–40 pg/mL range) and state clearly that no clinical samples below 4 pg/mL had quantitative validation.
  3. [Section 2.5] The statement that the CL-VFA surpasses traditional benchtop analyzers in sensitivity by an order of magnitude depends on the chosen comparator. The Beckman Access 2 analyzer used for ground truth has a quantification cutoff of 4 pg/mL, but many hs-cTnI assays report LoDs of roughly 1–2 pg/mL; comparing the extrapolated 0.16 pg/mL value to 4 pg/mL conflates LoD with LoQ and does not demonstrate an order-of-magnitude advantage over current hs-cTnI benchtop assays. Please compare against published LoD/LoQ values of specific FDA-cleared hs-cTnI assays and provide uncertainty bounds for the extrapolated LoD.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods] The text repeatedly contains 'm м' (e.g., '10 m м borate buffer'), which should be 'mM'; this encoding artifact appears throughout the Methods and should be corrected.
  2. [Equation (2)] The normalized signal formula INormalized = 1 - (216-1 - XTest)/(216-1 - Xneg) is ambiguous: the notation '216-1' presumably means 2^16 - 1, and the subtraction order should be clarified.
  3. [Figure 3] The text states R² = 0.99 for the calibration curve in Figure 3b, while the figure caption reports R2 = 0.9929; please make the reported values consistent.
  4. [Methods] The description of batch standardization layers in the neural networks should specify whether these are batch normalization layers, and the use of dropout with batch normalization should be justified or clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LoD is a standard calibration-curve conversion and clinical validation uses an external FDA-cleared analyzer.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. In Section 2.5, the LoD is computed as LoB + 1.645 x SD of the lowest cTnI measurement, with LoB from the mean blank plus 1.645 x SD of the blank; the measured blank and low-sample intensities are then converted to concentrations using the calibration curve y=0.0147x^0.4043 fitted to spiked serum from 0.5 to 1e5 pg/mL. This is standard calibration use, not a definitional reduction: the LoD is derived from measured blank and low-end signal variability, and the same fitted curve is used merely to express those signal-level statistics in concentration units. The curve is not defined in terms of the LoD, and the LoD is not an input to the fit. The concern that the 0.16 pg/mL value lies below the lowest calibrator is an extrapolation and statistical robustness issue, not circularity. In Section 2.6, the neural-network predictions are validated against an external gold standard (Beckman Access 2, FDA-cleared), with 66 blinded samples not used in training; samples with ground truth below 4 pg/mL are excluded from Pearson's r and CV calculations, so the correlation is not self-referential. Self-citations to prior VFA hardware, conjugate, and cartridge work support components of the platform but are not load-bearing for the headline LoD or the clinical correlation. No equation reduces to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard statistical assumptions, an external clinical analyzer as ground truth, and several hand-set thresholds. The most consequential choices are the fitted calibration curve used to extrapolate LoD and the post hoc exclusion of three outliers before neural network evaluation. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • LoD calibration power-law coefficients = a=0.0147, b=0.4043 in y=a*x^b
    Fitted to spiked-serum titration data (Figure 3b) and used to convert blank-derived CL intensity into the reported 0.16 pg/mL LoD; the LoD is an extrapolation below the lowest measured calibrator.
  • Clinical correlation power-law coefficients = a=0.0048, b=0.5
    Fitted to 72 clinical samples (Figures 3d/3e) and used for outlier identification and to show CL-VFA signal correlation with ground truth.
  • Cascade concentration range borders = 40 pg/mL and 1000 pg/mL
    Hand-selected to balance sample representation across clinical ranges; these borders define DNN classification classes and which quantification network is used, so they affect all reported accuracy metrics.
  • Outlier exclusion threshold = >=1 order of magnitude deviation from trendline
    Hand-set criterion used to remove 3 of 72 clinical samples from neural network training and blinded performance evaluation; this selection affects the reported r=0.984.
  • Negative-control QC confidence interval = 95% CI (1.96 SD)
    Hand-set digital quality control threshold; 4 CL-VFAs were excluded from the dataset when all negative control spots fell outside this range.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Blank and low-concentration signals are approximately Gaussian, supporting the parametric LoD formula (mean blank + 1.645 SD).
    Invoked in Section 2.5 for LoB/LoD computation; if the blank distribution is non-Gaussian, the 0.16 pg/mL value is not reliable.
  • domain assumption cTnI spiked into cTnI-free human serum behaves like endogenous clinical cTnI.
    The LoD and calibration curve in Figure 3b are based on spiked serum; clinical validation relies on this equivalence to transfer the sensitivity claim to patient samples.
  • domain assumption The Beckman Access 2 hs-cTnI analyzer provides accurate quantitative ground truth above 4 pg/mL.
    All neural network labels and validation correlations use this external analyzer as gold standard; errors in this analyzer propagate to the reported accuracies.
  • domain assumption Remnant serum samples stored at -80C and thawed once retain their original cTnI concentration.
    The paper re-tested only outliers and three normal samples; for the remaining clinical samples it assumes stability, though three outliers showed >99%, 13%, and 40% degradation, indicating the assumption does not always hold.
  • domain assumption Training, validation, and blind-test CL-VFA samples are statistically independent.
    The paper states samples were not used in training but does not state that patients are disjoint across the splits; with 72 samples from a limited number of patients, patient-level correlation could inflate r=0.984.
  • domain assumption Non-specific binding and serum interferents (hemolysis, lipemia, autoantibodies) do not systematically affect test spot signals.
    Three outliers are attributed to such interferents after the fact; the neural network performance assumes the remaining samples are unaffected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep learning-enhanced chemiluminescence vertical flow assay for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWY77IIG

@misc{pith2026241208945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep learning-enhanced chemiluminescence vertical flow assay for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWY77IIG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08945}
}
read the original abstract

Democratizing biomarker testing at the point-of-care requires innovations that match laboratory-grade sensitivity and precision in an accessible format. Here, we demonstrate high-sensitivity detection of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) through innovations in chemiluminescence-based sensing, imaging, and deep learning-driven analysis. This chemiluminescence vertical flow assay (CL-VFA) enables rapid, low-cost, and precise quantification of cTnI, a key cardiac protein for assessing heart muscle damage and myocardial infarction. The CL-VFA integrates a user-friendly chemiluminescent paper-based sensor, a polymerized enzyme-based conjugate, a portable high-performance CL reader, and a neural network-based cTnI concentration inference algorithm. The CL-VFA measures cTnI over a broad dynamic range covering six orders of magnitude and operates with 50 uL of serum per test, delivering results in 25 min. This system achieves a detection limit of 0.16 pg/mL with an average coefficient of variation under 15%, surpassing traditional benchtop analyzers in sensitivity by an order of magnitude. In blinded validation, the computational CL-VFA accurately measured cTnI concentrations in patient samples, demonstrating a robust correlation against a clinical-grade FDA-cleared analyzer. These results highlight the potential of CL-VFA as a robust diagnostic tool for accessible, rapid cardiac biomarker testing that meets the needs of diverse healthcare settings, from emergency care to underserved regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of deep learning-enhanced paper-based Chemiluminescence (CL)-VFA for high￾sensitivity cTnI testing in point-of-care settings. (a) The conventional hospital-centered approach for diagnosing AMI patients and its transition to a patient-centered POCT model. (b) Components of the CL￾VFA system, including assay cartridges and a portable reader for rapid and accessible POCT. (c) Structural details of the CL-VFA; … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    World Health Organization, World health statistics 2023: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240074323, accessed: November, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    C. W. Tsao, A. W. Aday, Z. I. Almarzooq, C. A. M. Anderson, P. Arora, C. L. Avery, C. M. Baker -Smith, A. Z. Beaton, A. K. Boehme, A. E. Buxton, Y. Commodore -Mensah, M. S. V. Elkind, K. R. Evenson, C. Eze-Nliam, S. Fugar, G. Generoso, D. G. Heard, S. Hiremath, J. E. Ho, R. Kalani, D. S. Kazi, D. Ko, D. A. Levine, J. Liu, J. Ma, J. W. Magnani, E. D. Micho...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Ouyang, D

    M. Ouyang, D. Tu, L. Tong, M. Sarwar, A. Bhimaraj, C. Li, G. L. Coté, D. Di Carlo, Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021, 171, 112621

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Gheorghe, U

    A. Gheorghe, U. Griffiths, A. Murphy, H. Legido-Quigley, P. Lamptey, P. Perel, BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 975

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    X. Du, X. Su, W. Zhang, S. Yi, G. Zhang, S. Jiang, H. Li, S. Li, F. Xia, Anal. Chem. 2022, 94, 442

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    J. L. Anderson, E. W. Campion, D. A. Morrow, N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 376, 2053

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    K. C. Park, D. C. Gaze, P. O. Collinson, M. S. Marber, Cardiovasc. Res. 2017, 113, 1708

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Wassie, M

    M. Wassie, M. -S. Lee, B. C. Sun, Y. -L. Wu, A. S. Baecker, R. F. Redberg, M. Ferencik, E. Shen, V. Musigdilok, A. L. Sharp, JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e2037930

    work page 2021

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Westermann, J

    D. Westermann, J. T. Neumann, N. A. Sörensen, S. Blankenberg, Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2017, 14, 472

    2017

  2. [10]

    Thygesen, J

    K. Thygesen, J. S. Alpert, A. S. Jaffe, B. R. Chaitman, J. J. Bax, D. A. Morrow, H. D. White, Circulation 2018, 138, e618

    2018

  3. [11]

    A. H. B. Wu, R. H. Christenson, D. N. Greene, A. S. Jaffe, P. A. Kavsak, J. Ordonez -Llanos, F. S. Apple, Clin. Chem. 2018, 64, 645

    2018

  4. [12]

    J. T. Neumann, R. Twerenbold, F. Ojeda, N. A. Sörensen, A. R. Chapman, A. S. V. Shah, A. Anand, J. Boeddinghaus, T. Nestelberger, P. Badertscher, A. Mokhtari, J. W. Pickering, R. W. Troughton, J. Greenslade, W. Parsonage, M. Mueller-Hennessen, T. Gori, T. Jernberg, N. Morris, ...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Farmakis, C

    D. Farmakis, C. Mueller, F. S. Apple, Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 4050

    2020

  6. [14]

    F. S. Apple, C. R. Fantz, P. O. Collinson, t. I. C. o. C. A. o. C. Bio-Markers, Clin. Chem. 2020, 67, 70

    2020

  7. [15]

    P. K. Drain, E. P. Hyle, F. Noubary, K. A. Freedberg, D. Wilson, W. R. Bishai, W. Rodriguez, I. V. Bassett, Lancet Infect. Dis. 2014, 14, 239

    2014

  8. [16]

    A. R. Chapman, S. Stewart, N. L. Mills, Heart 2019, 105, 740

    2019

  9. [17]

    I. V. L. Thulin, G. M. S. Myrmel, S. M. F. Jordalen, P. Collinson, K. M. Aakre, J. Lab. Precis. Med. 2023, 8

    2023

  10. [18]

    J. A. Leigh, M. Alvarez, C. J. Rodriguez, Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 2016, 18, 9

    2016

  11. [19]

    Suzuki, K

    K. Suzuki, K. Komukai, K. Nakata, R. Kang, Y. Oi, E. Muto, Y. Kashiwagi, M. Tominaga, S. Miyanaga, T. Ishikawa, K. Okuno, M. Uzura, M. Yoshimura, Intern. Med. 2018, 57, 1673

    2018

  12. [20]

    Regan, R

    B. Regan, R. O’Kennedy, D. Collins, in Advances in Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 104 (Ed: G. S. Makowski), Elsevier, Netherland 2021, Ch. 1

    2021

  13. [21]

    Cullen, P

    L. Cullen, P. O. Collinson, E. Giannitsis, Emerg. Med. 2022, 39, 861

    2022

  14. [22]

    F. V. Plapp, A. Dasgupta, Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2023, 53, 322

    2023

  15. [23]

    W. F. Peacock, D. Diercks, R. Birkhahn, A. J. Singer, J. E. Hollander, R. Nowak, B. Safdar, C. D. Miller, M. Peberdy, F. Counselman, A. Chandra, J. Kosowsky, J. Neuenschwander, J. Schrock, E. Lee - Lewandrowski, W. Arnold, J. Nagurney, Ann. Lab. Med. 2016, 36, 405

    2016

  16. [24]

    Xiong-Hang, K

    K. Xiong-Hang, K. Schulz, Y. Sandoval, S. W. Smith, A. K. Saenger, F. S. Apple, Clin. Biochem. 2023, 114, 79

    2023

  17. [25]

    W. U. Dittmer, T. H. Evers, W. M. Hardeman, W. Huijnen, R. Kamps, P. de Kievit, J. H. Neijzen, J. H. Nieuwenhuis, M. J. Sijbers, D. W. Dekkers, M. H. Hefti, M. F. Martens, Clin. Chim. Acta. 2010, 411, 868

    2010

  18. [26]

    D. W. Kemper, V. Semjonow, F. de Theije, D. Keizer, L. van Lippen, J. Mair, B. Wille, M. Christ, F. Geier, P. Hausfater, D. Pariente, V. Scharnhorst, J. Curvers, J. Nieuwenhuis, Clin. Biochem. 2017, 50, 174

    2017

  19. [27]

    A. H. Wu, A. Smith, R. H. Christenson, M. M. Murakami, F. S. Apple, Clin. Chim. Acta. 2004, 346, 211

    2004

  20. [28]

    Osredkar, K

    J. Osredkar, K. Krivic, T. Fabjan, K. Kumer, J. Tršan, L. Poljančič, P. Finderle, H. Možina, Med. Access Point Care 2021, 5, 23992026211055095

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ahmed, L

    S. Ahmed, L. Jafri, A. Raheem, S. Shakeel, I. Siddiqui, Cureus 2019, 11, e4231

    2019

  22. [30]

    Han, M.-G

    G.-R. Han, M.-G. Kim, Sensors 2020, 20, 2593. 24

    2020

  23. [31]

    M. Song, J. Xing, H. Cai, X. Gao, C. Li, C. Liu, X. Li, X. Fu, S. Ding, W. Cheng, R. Chen, ACS Nano 2023, 17, 10748

    2023

  24. [32]

    G.-R. Han, H. Ki, M.-G. Kim, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 1885

    2020

  25. [33]

    G.-R. Han, H. J. Koo, H. Ki, M.-G. Kim, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 34564

    2020

  26. [34]

    Khachornsakkul, W

    K. Khachornsakkul, W. Dungchai, ACS Sens. 2021, 6, 1339

    2021

  27. [35]

    T. Zhan, Y. Su, W. Lai, Z. Chen, C. Zhang, Biosens. Bioelectron. 2022, 214, 114494

    2022

  28. [36]

    Hong, E.-J

    D. Hong, E.-J. Jo, K. Kim, M.-B. Song, M.-G. Kim, Small 2020, 16, 2004535

    2020

  29. [37]

    F. Li, L. Guo, Y. Hu, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. He, H. Cui, Talanta 2020, 207, 120346

    2020

  30. [38]

    R. Yang, F. Li, W. Zhang, W. Shen, D. Yang, Z. Bian, H. Cui, Anal. Chem. 2019, 91, 13006

    2019

  31. [39]

    I. H. Cho, E. H. Paek, Y. K. Kim, J. H. Kim, S. H. Paek, Anal. Chim. Acta. 2009, 632, 247

    2009

  32. [40]

    G.-R. Han, A. Goncharov, M. Eryilmaz, H. -A. Joung, R. Ghosh, G. Yim, N. Chang, M. Kim, K. Ngo, M. Veszpremi, K. Liao, O. B. Garner, D. Di Carlo, A. Ozcan, ACS Nano 2024, 18, 27933

    2024

  33. [41]

    Cheng, Y

    K. Cheng, Y. Ding, C. Liu, Y. Ding, S. Xie, X. Zhu, H. Liu, W. Yue, Microfluid.Nanofluidics 2023, 27, 39

    2023

  34. [42]

    H. Zhao, Q. Lin, L. Huang, Y. Zhai, Y. Liu, Y. Deng, E. Su, N. He, Nanoscale 2021, 13, 3275

    2021

  35. [43]

    J. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Zheng, S. Sun, Measurement 2014, 47, 200

    2014

  36. [44]

    D. Sun, Z. Luo, J. Lu, S. Zhang, T. Che, Z. Chen, L. Zhang, Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 134, 49

    2019

  37. [45]

    Sarangadharan, S.-L

    I. Sarangadharan, S.-L. Wang, R. Sukesan, P.-c. Chen, T.-Y. Dai, A. K. Pulikkathodi, C. -P. Hsu, H.-H. K. Chiang, L. Y.-M. Liu, Y.-L. Wang, Anal. Chem. 2018, 90, 2867

    2018

  38. [46]

    Y. Wang, T. Liu, M. Yang, C. Wu, W. Zhang, Z. Chu, W. Jin, Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021, 193, 113554

    2021

  39. [47]

    X. Yang, Y. Zhao, L. Sun, H. Qi, Q. Gao, C. Zhang, Sensor. Actuat. B-Chem 2018, 257, 60

    2018

  40. [48]

    W. Xu, L. Wang, R. Zhang, X. Sun, L. Huang, H. Su, X. Wei, C. -C. Chen, J. Lou, H. Dai, K. Qian, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1654

    2020

  41. [49]

    Westwood, B

    M. Westwood, B. Ramaekers, S. Grimm, G. Worthy, D. Fayter, N. Armstrong, T. Buksnys, J. Ross, M. Joore, J. Kleijnen, Health Technol. Assess. 2021, 25, 1

    2021

  42. [50]

    International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I and T Assay Analytical Characteristics Designated by Manufacturer. IFCC Committee on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Bio -Markers, https://ifccfiles.com/2024/03/High-Se...

    2024

  43. [51]

    M. Yang, J. Huang, J. Fan, J. Du, K. Pu, X. Peng, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2020, 49, 6800

    2020

  44. [52]

    H. A. Joung, Z. S. Ballard, A. Ma, D. K. Tseng, H. Teshome, S. Burakowski, O. B. Garner, D. Di Carlo, A. Ozcan, Lab Chip 2019, 19, 1027

    2019

  45. [53]

    Z. S. Ballard, H. A. Joung, A. Goncharov, J. Liang, K. Nugroho, D. Di Carlo, O. B. Garner, A. Ozcan, NPJ Digit. Med. 2020, 3, 66

    2020

  46. [54]

    Goncharov, H

    A. Goncharov, H. A. Joung, R. Ghosh, G. R. Han, Z. S. Ballard, Q. Maloney, A. Bell, C. T. Z. Aung, O. B. Garner, D. D. Carlo, A. Ozcan, Small 2023, 19, e2300617

    2023

  47. [55]

    Eryilmaz, A

    M. Eryilmaz, A. Goncharov, G. R. Han, H. A. Joung, Z. S. Ballard, R. Ghosh, Y. Zhang, D. Di Carlo, A. Ozcan, ACS Nano 2024, 18, 16819

    2024

  48. [56]

    Ghosh, H.-A

    R. Ghosh, H.-A. Joung, A. Goncharov, B. Palanisamy, K. Ngo, K. Pejcinovic, N. Krockenberger, E. J. Horn, O. B. Garner, E. Ghazal, A. O’Kula, P. M. Arnaboldi, R. J. Dattwyler, A. Ozcan, D. Di Carlo, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 7124

    2024

  49. [57]

    H. J. Jang, H. A. Joung, A. Goncharov, A. G. Kanegusuku, C. W. Chan, K. J. Yeo, W. Zhuang, A. Ozcan, J. Chen, ACS Nano 2024, 18, 24792

    2024

  50. [58]

    Joung, Z

    H.-A. Joung, Z. S. Ballard, J. Wu, D. K. Tseng, H. Teshome, L. Zhang, E. J. Horn, P. M. Arnaboldi, R. J. Dattwyler, O. B. Garner, D. Di Carlo, A. Ozcan, ACS Nano 2020, 14, 229

    2020

  51. [59]

    N. M. Green, Adv. Protein Chem. 1975, 29, 85

    1975

  52. [60]

    D. A. Armbruster, T. Pry, Clin. Biochem. Rev. 2008, 29 Suppl 1, S49

    2008

  53. [61]

    D. S. Herman, P. A. Kavsak, D. N. Greene, Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2017, 148, 281

    2017

  54. [62]

    J. Mair, O. Hammarsten, J. Lab. Precis. Med. 2023, 8

    2023

  55. [63]

    M. T. H. Lowry, A. Anand, N. L. Mills, Heart 2021, 107, 1912

    2021

  56. [64]

    J. W. Pickering, J. M. Young, P. M. George, A. S. Watson, S. J. Aldous, R. W. Troughton, C. J. Pemberton, A. M. Richards, L. A. Cullen, M. P. Than, JAMA Cardiol. 2018, 3, 1108

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.