MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Separation of hemoglobin variants with similar charge by capillary isoelectric focusing: Value of isoelectric point for identification of common and uncommon hemoglobin variants

2000· article· en· W2028075486 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James M. Hempe, Randall Craver

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsoelectric focusingHemoglobin variantsIsoelectric pointHemoglobinPiChemistryChromatographyMolecular biologyBiochemistryBiologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical assays for the primary evaluation of congenital hemoglobin (Hb) disorders must detect and identify a variety of Hb variants. We analyzed hemolysates containing Hb variants with similar charge to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of automated capillary isoelectric focusing (CIEF). Peak separation was observed for each variant in samples containing Hb S, D, and G. The calculated isoelectric points (pI) of these variants were significantly different such that each could be identified in a single run with pI as the sole criterion of identification. The pI of Hb C was significantly different from that of Hb E, C-Harlem, and O-Arab. Hb E, C-Harlem, and O-Arab had similar pI and were not readily differentiated. Hb Koln, M-Saskatoon, Aida, and S/Aida hybrid were readily separated from common Hb variants and detected by CIEF. We conclude that CIEF exhibits both diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and that pI is an objective and specific criterion of Hb variant identification.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations38
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207