MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951580262 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v7n2p85

New Spectrofluorimetric Method for Determining Serotonin: Application to Human Urine

2015· article· en· W1951580262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdourahmane Khonté, Diène Diégane Thiaré, Cheikh Diop, Lamine Cissé, François Delattre, Atanasse Coly, Mame Diabou Gaye‐Seye, Niama Diop Sall, Alphonse Tine

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyDetection limitReproducibilityExtraction (chemistry)SerotoninFluorescenceUrineSolid phase extractionAnalytical proceduresAnalytical Chemistry (journal)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this present paper, we investigate the development of simple, rapid, accurate, reproducible and sensitive methods for the determination of serotonin (5-HT) in urine. For this purpose stationary fluorescence was used as method. With regard to the analysis of serotonin, the liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) solid phase extraction (SPE) and standard addition procedures were used. Several physicochemical factors affecting the sensitivity of the fluorescence intensity of serotonin were optimized, including the system of solvent (organic, micellar), the pH and the salts. The study of the analytical performances of the method led to very low limits of detection (LOD) varying between 0.1 and 3 ng/mL and to limits of quantification (LOQ) ranging between 0.4 and 10 ng/mL. This confirms the sensitivity of the method. Thus the low values of standard deviations (DRS) (between 0.3 and 6.6%) testify the good reproducibility of the measurements with satisfactory covering rate (89 to 111%). Accordingly, our results show that the spectrofluorimetric method is simple, fast and sensitive and can be applied to the routine analysis and does not require expensive equipment nor tiresome chemical pretreatments.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207