MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W18029959 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/90.5.1418

A High-Throughput Analytical Method for Determination of Aminoglycosides in Veal Tissues by Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry with Automated Cleanup

2007· article· en· W18029959 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Babin, Serge Fortier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatographyAnalyteChemistryTandem mass spectrometryDetection limitMass spectrometryExtraction (chemistry)Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometryElectrospray

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) method was developed for determining dihydrostreptomycin, gentamicin C1, and neomycin in veal kidney, liver, and muscle. The extraction prior to injection on the automated cleanup/analysis system is very simple, permitting preparation of 24 veal samples for analysis in half a day of work. The extracts are purified online on a reversed-phase column, with the help of an ion-pairing agent, and the analytes are separated on a Nucleosil C18 column prior to analyses by electrospray MS/MS. The cleanup is sufficient to minimize ion suppression/enhancement phenomena and permits quantification of the analytes extracted from veal tissues. Four secondary ions were measured for every analyte, which gives unambiguous identification of the compounds under analysis. Calibration curves were linear for all analytes between 50 and 5000 ppb, and recoveries in kidney were 76, 57, and 51%, respectively, for dihydrostreptomycin, gentamicin C1, and neomycin. Estimated limits of detection for kidney were, respectively, 0.1, 0.1, and 0.4 ppb. When compared to an LC method with fluorescence detection, the method gave equivalent results for kidneys incurred with neomycin. This rugged method has been applied to the analysis of more than 1000 veal samples over a 1-year period.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207