MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014643838 · doi:10.1039/c1lc20524b

A digital microfluidic method for dried blood spot analysis

2011· article· en· W2014643838 on OpenAlexafffund
Mais J. Jebrail, Hao Yang, Jared M. Mudrik, Nelson M. Lafrenière, Christine McRoberts, Osama Y. Al-Dirbashi, Lawrence Fisher, Pranesh Chakraborty, Aaron R. Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioNewborn Screening OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDried blood spotDried bloodAnalyteMicrofluidicsChromatographyComputer scienceSpotsAutomationChemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blood samples stored as dried blood spots (DBSs) are emerging as a useful sampling and storage vehicle for a wide range of applications. Unfortunately, the surging popularity of DBS samples has not yet been accompanied by an improvement in automated techniques for extraction and analysis. As a first step towards overcoming this challenge, we have developed a prototype microfluidic system for quantification of amino acids in dried blood spots, in which analytes are extracted, mixed with internal standards, derivatized, and reconstituted for analysis by (off-line and in-line) tandem mass spectrometry. The new method is fast, robust, precise, and most importantly, compatible with automation. We propose that the new method can potentially contribute to a new generation of analytical techniques for quantifying analytes in DBS samples for a wide range of applications.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations119
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207