MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081032856 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/36/3/n51

Effect of sample preparation techniques on the concentrations and distributions of elements in biological tissues using <i>µ</i>SRXRF: a comparative study

2015· article· en· W2081032856 on OpenAlexafffund
Alia Al‐Ebraheem, E. Han Dao, E. Desouza, C Li, Bruce Wainman, Fiona E. McNeill, Michael Farquharson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsStratum corneumEpidermis (zoology)DermisCryofixationSignificant differenceSpongy tissueChemistryHuman skinZincMaterials scienceBiophysicsAnatomyPathologyBiologyUltrastructureBiochemistryMetallurgyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Routine tissue sample preparation using chemical fixatives is known to preserve the morphology of the tissue being studied. A competitive method, cryofixation followed by freeze drying, involves no chemical agents and maintains the biological function of the tissue. The possible effects of both sample preparation techniques in terms of the distribution of bio-metals (calcium (Ca), copper (Cu) zinc (Zn), and iron (Fe) specifically) in human skin tissue samples was investigated. Micro synchrotron radiation x-ray fluorescence (μSRXRF) was used to map bio-metal distribution in epidermal and dermal layers of human skin samples from various locations of the body that have been prepared using both techniques. For Ca, Cu and Zn, there were statistically significant differences between the epidermis and dermis using the freeze drying technique (p = 0.02, p < 0.01, and p < 0.01, respectively). Also using the formalin fixed, paraffin embedded technique the levels of Ca, Cu and Zn, were significantly different between the epidermis and dermis layers (p = 0.03, p < 0.01, and p < 0.01, respectively). However, the difference in levels of Fe between the epidermis and dermis was unclear and further analysis was required. The epidermis was further divided into two sub-layers, one mainly composed of the stratum corneum and the other deeper layer, the stratum basale. It was found that the difference between the distribution of Fe in the two epidermal layers using the freeze drying technique resulted in a statistically significant difference (p = 0.012). This same region also showed a difference in Fe using the formalin fixed, paraffin embedded technique (p < 0.01). The formalin fixed, paraffin embedded technique also showed a difference between the deeper epidermal layer and the dermis (p < 0.01). It can be concluded that studies involving Ca, Cu and Zn might show similar results using both sample preparation techniques, however studies involving Fe would need more special attention.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207