Measurement of low concentration and nano-quantity hydrogen sulfide in aqueous solution: measurement mechanisms and limitations
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
To measure hydrogen sulfide (H2S) level in biological samples in vivo on a real-time basis with high resolution is greatly needed for advancing our understanding of the biological role of H2S. Traditional H2S measurements usually need large tissue samples and complex procedures. However, H2S concentration is very low in human bodies and the tissue sample is limited for medical treatment purposes. There is a need to develop a new paradigm for the real-time measurement of a trace amount of hydrogen sulfide with a small amount of tissue samples or in vivo. We previously reported a method to measure low concentration H2S solution using carbon nanotubes and the fluorescence spectra of Raman and confocal laser scanning microscopes. We obtained that the measurement resolution with a confocal laser scanning microscope is higher than that with a Raman microscope; in particular, 10 µM concentration difference can be detected with a confocal laser scanning microscope. In this paper, we present the underlying mechanism and limitation of this method together with other traditional methods based on the theoretical analysis, which leads to the finding of further research on the measurement of low concentration and nano-quantity H2S solution.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it