MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055385360 · doi:10.1002/rcm.2856

Use of a variably sensitive selected reaction monitoring method to extend the linear dynamic range for quantitative high‐performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry

2007· article· en· W2055385360 on OpenAlexaff
Harvey E. Fries, Mauro Aiello, Christopher A. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsSciex (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistrySelected reaction monitoringDynamic rangeMass spectrometryTandemRange (aeronautics)Triple quadrupole mass spectrometerChromatographyLinear rangeThroughputAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Tandem mass spectrometryLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryDetection limitComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method has been devised with the capacity to extend the linear dynamic range of a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer operated in the selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode of analysis. This extended range experiment can be realized by simultaneously acquiring variably sensitive data, via collision energy adjustment, for the same precursor-to-product ion transition within a single SRM method. While this method can be applied universally to many different study types without any detrimental effect to the analysis or throughput, it was applied herein to acquire and quantify, within a single analysis, the concentrations of GSK-A in a multiple-dose rodent study, that previously required a dilution scheme. Using this methodology, the linear dynamic range of GSK-A was increased over traditional methods by nearly two orders of magnitude, from 2.00-10,000 ng/mL to 0.500-100,000 ng/mL.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRapid Communications in Mass SpectrometrySame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207