MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522833579 · doi:10.1002/jssc.201300779

Tandem <scp>LC</scp> columns for the simultaneous retention of polar and nonpolar molecules in comprehensive metabolomics analysis

2013· article· en· W1522833579 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth R. Chalcraft, Brian E. McCarry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Separation Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetabolomicsChemistryTandemChromatographyTandem mass spectrometryChemical polarityPolarMoleculeMass spectrometryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tandem use of hydrophilic interaction LC columns with RP columns in series configuration has resulted in the retention of both polar and nonpolar components in complex biological samples (mouse serum) in a single analysis. This approach successfully coupled various columns with orthogonal separation characteristics, employed a single solvent gradient program compatible with the two columns and used ESI coupled to a TOF mass spectrometer for detection. Ion suppression, a common problem in ESI, was virtually eliminated for components eluting with apparent capacity factors >0.7. Retention time reproducibility with the tandem columns performed over three days with over 100 injections was comparable to that observed for single columns alone. This method was applied to the analysis of a pooled mouse serum sample and afforded highly reproducible data for up to 3000 mass spectral features. This approach was implemented with a conventional LC-MS system and should find broad applicability in the comprehensive analysis of complex mixtures containing a wide range of compound polarities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Separation ScienceSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207