MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005624293 · doi:10.1002/bmc.474

Determination of chlortetracycline in swine plasma by LC‐ESI/MS/MS

2005· article· en· W2005624293 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Beaudry, Jérôme R. E. del Castillo

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Chromatography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatographyChemistryProtein precipitationFormic acidBioanalysisSample preparationExtraction (chemistry)ChlortetracyclineMass spectrometryLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryAccuracy and precisionTandem mass spectrometryAcetonitrileCalibration curveDetection limit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapid, selective and sensitive method has been developed for the determination of chlortetracycline in swine plasma by LC-ESI/MS/MS. The method consists of a protein precipitation extraction for sample preparation and liquid chromatography ionspray tandem mass spectrometry for analysis. The plasma samples were extracted with acetonitrile and the supernatants were analyzed using an LC-ESI/MS/MS instrument. Separation was achieved using a C(8) analytical column and an isocratic mobile phase composed of 70:30 acetonitrile:0.5% formic acid in water at a flow rate of 500 microL/min. A linear (weighted 1/concentration) relationship was used to perform the calibration over an analytical range 20--2000 ppb (ng/mL). The intra-batch precision and accuracy at LLOQ, medium and high concentrations were 9.0, 11.3 and 9.9% and 97.7, 100.3 and 98.4%, respectively, and the inter-batch precision and accuracy at LLOQ, medium and high concentrations were 9.1, 8.4 and 7.4% and 95.1, 102.1 and 97.1%, respectively. This LC-ESI/MS/MS method for the determination of chlortetracycline in swine plasma has been proven to be within generally accepted criteria used for bioanalytical assay.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical ChromatographySame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207