Development of a solid-phase assay for measurement of sulfated glycosaminoglycan concentrations in equine synovial fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a new 1,9-dimethylmethylene blue (DMMB) assay for measurement of sulfated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) concentrations in equine synovial fluid (SF) by use of membrane technology and to compare the assay's ability to measure sGAG concentrations with that of 2 other established DMMB assays. SAMPLE POPULATION: 25 samples of SF collected from affected joints of 14 horses and 13 samples of SF collected from nonaffected (control) joints of 4 horses. PROCEDURE: A solid-phase DMMB assay was developed to measure sGAG concentrations in SE Results for the assay were then compared with results obtained by use of the direct spectrophotometric method (ie, Famdale method) and microplate DMMB assay. RESULTS: The solid-phase assay and direct spectrophotometric assay measured the same sGAG concentrations in identical equine SF, but those concentrations differed significantly from results obtained by use of the microplate DMMB assay. All other aspects of the solid-phase DMMB assay were comparable to both the direct spectrophotometric and microplate DMMB assays. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The new solid-phase assay can be used interchangeably with the direct spectrophotometric method to measure sGAG concentrations in equine SF samples, but it cannot be interchanged with the microplate DMMB assay. Results can be rapidly obtained with the solid-phase assay. Also, the solid-phase assay can detect nanogram quantities of sGAGs in SF, circumvent the problem of premature precipitation of sGAG-dye complexes, and provide quantitative or qualitative results. The solid-phase assay may replace other DMMB assays for measuring sGAG concentrations in SF obtained from horses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".