MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979761097 · doi:10.1002/jssc.200700390

Automated derivatization and analysis of malondialdehyde using column switching sample preparation HPLC with fluorescence detection

2008· article· en· W1979761097 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Lord, Jack Rosenfeld, Sandeep Raha, Mazen J. Hamadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Separation Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDerivatizationChromatographyChemistryAnalyteSolid phase extractionSample preparationElutionQuantitative analysis (chemistry)High-performance liquid chromatographyAmberliteMalondialdehydeDetection limitAdsorptionBiochemistryOxidative stress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyte derivatization is advantageous for the analysis of malondialdehyde (MDA) as a biomarker of oxidative stress in biological samples. Conventionally, however, derivatization is time consuming, error-prone and has limited options for automation. We have addressed these challenges for the solid phase analytical derivatization of MDA from small volume tissue homogenate samples. A manual derivatization method was first developed using Amberlite XAD-2 (12 mg) as the solid phase. Subsequently an automated column switching process was developed that provided simultaneous derivatization and extraction of the MDA-DH hydrazone product on a cartridge packed with XAD-2, followed by quantitative elution of the product to an analytical LC column (Waters NovoPak C18, 3.9 x 150 mm). The LOD was 0.02 microg/mL and recovery was quantitative. The method was linear (r(2) >0.999) with precision < 5% from the LOQ (0.06 microg/mL) to at least 35 microg/mL. The method was successfully applied to the analysis of small volume (30 microL) mouse tissue homogenate samples. Endogenous levels of MDA in the tissues ranged from 20 to 40 nmol/g tissue (ca. 0.1-0.2 microg/mL homogenate). Compared to conventional MDA analyses, the current method has advantages in automation, selectivity, precision and sensitivity for analysis from very small sample volumes.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Separation ScienceSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207