This review summarizes the recent advances and the main strategies to improve the sensitivity of amplification-free CRISPR/Cas-based detection techniques.

Infectious diseases contribute significantly to the global disease burden. Sensitive and accurate screening methods are some of the most effective means of identifying sources of infection and controlling infectivity. Conventional detecting strategies such as quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), DNA sequencing, and mass spectrometry typically require bulky equipment and well-trained personnel. Therefore, mass screening of a large population using conventional strategies during pandemic periods often requires additional manpower, resources, and time, which cannot be guaranteed in resource-limited settings. Recently, emerging microfluidic technologies have shown the potential to replace conventional methods in performing point-of-care detection because they are automated, miniaturized, and integrated. By exploiting the spatial separation of detection sites, microfluidic platforms can enable the multiplex detection of infectious diseases to reduce the possibility of misdiagnosis and incomplete diagnosis of infectious diseases with similar symptoms. This review presents the recent advances in microfluidic platforms used for multiplex detection of infectious diseases, including microfluidic immunosensors and microfluidic nucleic acid sensors. As representative microfluidic platforms, lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) platforms, polymer-based chips, paper-based devices, and droplet-based devices will be discussed in detail. In addition, the current challenges, commercialization, and prospects are proposed to promote the application of microfluidic platforms in infectious disease detection.

Objectives: Interdisciplinary medical-engineering education is critical for driving scientific innovation and cultivating next-generation medical-engineering talents. This study aimed to evaluate medical-engineering education models at universities in China through case studies, core competency development, and questionnaire surveys and analyzed key indicators such as curriculum design, international collaboration, and university-industry partnerships. Methods: A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used for data collection and analysis. A questionnaire survey including multi-dimensional investigations was administered to 80 students, 15 student supervisors, and 10 administrators, yielding 100 valid responses. Case studies were conducted to explore the best practices in interdisciplinary talent development. Results: The survey revealed that although over 80 % of respondents acknowledged the discipline’s importance, curriculum satisfaction was inadequate (23.08 %), and practical engagement was limited (19.23 %). Students identified “resource allocation” and “professional practice” as key influencing factors, while supervisors and administrators emphasized the importance of “scientific research” and “academic exchange.” Case studies indicated that leading universities promote high-quality medical-engineering talent through flexible curricula, international collaborations, and practice-oriented approaches. Conclusions: Optimizing curriculum design, improving university-industry collaboration, strengthening practical training, and refining policy support are crucial for cultivating interdisciplinary talent equipped to meet modern requirements and drive medical-engineering innovation.