Development and evaluation of a new <i>in vivo</i> solid‐phase microextraction sampler
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of solid-phase microextraction (SPME) as a nonlethal technique for in vivo sampling of pharmaceutical residue in fish tissue has been documented in the literature. However, there is need to improve its simplicity and robustness for wider applications in the laboratory and field. The objective of this research is to develop and improve the SPME device for sampling of pharmaceuticals in fish tissue. The practical application of the new device was demonstrated in the field where some wild fish (Esox masquinongy) were caught in the river and sampled by the device. The samples were analyzed using LC coupled with MS/MS (LC-MS/MS). The new in vivo SPME device with a PDMS extraction phase (sorbent) was demonstrated to a robust tool by both experts and nonexpert of the method and it is simpler than the traditional device. The detection limit of the method in gel and fish tissue was 0.01-0.26 ng/g. The interday reproducibility in gel and fish homogenized fish tissue was 8-16% RSD. This study demonstrates that the new device will provide a platform or opportunity for rapid sampling of carbamazepine, diazepam, and nordiazepam in fish muscle with acceptable precision.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it