MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019212493 · doi:10.1016/j.jala.2007.10.008

An Instrument for Automated Purification of Nucleic Acids from Contaminated Forensic Samples

2008· article· en· W2019212493 on OpenAlexaff
David Broemeling, Joel Pel, Dylan Gunn, Laura Mai, Jason D. Thompson, Hiron Poon, Andre Marziali

Bibliographic record

VenueJALA Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsNucleic acidContaminationNucleic acid quantitationChromatographyChemistrySample preparationDenimEnvironmental chemistryMaterials scienceBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forensic crime scene sample analysis, by its nature, often deals with samples in which there are low amounts of nucleic acids, on substrates that often lead to inhibition of subsequent enzymatic reactions such as PCR amplification for STR profiling. Common substrates include denim from blue jeans, which yields indigo dye as a PCR inhibitor, and soil, which yields humic substances as inhibitors. These inhibitors frequently co-extract with nucleic acids in standard column or bead-based preps, leading to frequent failure of STR profiling. We present a novel instrument for DNA purification of forensic samples that is capable of highly effective concentration of nucleic acids from soil particulates, fabric, and other complex samples including solid components. The novel concentration process, known as SCODA, is inherently selective for long charged polymers such as DNA, and therefore is able to effectively reject known contaminants. We present an automated sample preparation instrument based on this process, and preliminary results based on mock forensic samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJALA Journal of the Association for Laboratory AutomationSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207