Deterioration of storage phosphor screens with use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract More than 1000 laboratories worldwide use phosphorimager systems for radioisotopic gel and blot quantification. This method is extraordinary sensitive and has a wide dynamic range, and it is therefore often preferred to conventional film‐based analysis. We checked the accuracy of our storage phosphor screen by exposing the same 32 P‐labelled blot in different positions on the same screen. The first exposure took place at the top of the screen, an area used more often; the second exposure at a relatively little‐used area of the screen. As the screens are said to last indefinitely, regardless of how often they are used, we did not expect a difference in the results. In fact, we found a significant impact of the position of the gel on the results. The position that was used more often gave inaccurate results; in contrast, the unused area of the screen gave data that were confirmed by X‐ray film autoradiography. We conclude that, contrary to described properties, a deterioration of the phosphor screens takes place with repeated use. To avoid obtaining invalid data, we recommend frequent checks of the screens. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".