MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129483958 · doi:10.4155/bio.09.74

Impact of Plasma and Whole-Blood Anticoagulant Counter Ion Choice on Drug Stability and Matrix Effects During Bioanalysis

2009· article· en· W2129483958 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie Bergeron, Annik Bergeron, Milton Furtado, Fabio Garofolo

Bibliographic record

VenueBioanalysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsBioPhage Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioanalysisAnticoagulantDrugMatrix (chemical analysis)ChemistryChromatographyPharmacologyPlasmaMedicineInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulants are used to prevent coagulation in blood samples. The plasma pH may change with a different counter ion and anticoagulant; thus, it is essential to determine effects on drug stability and the matrix effect during the bioanalytical method development. RESULTS: Cross-validation of multiple compounds between different counter ions was performed and no impact from the counter ion nature was demonstrated. Moreover, plasma stabilities and matrix effects for both fluconazole and granisetron were investigated thoroughly in numerous counter ions/anticoagulants (K(3)ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid [K(3)EDTA], K(2)EDTA, NaEDTA, NaHeparin and LiHeparin). Sirolimus, a large cyclic molecule, was also tested in different whole-blood EDTA counter ions. Results showed percentage deviation less than 8.5% and percentage cross-validation less than 8.4%. CONCLUSION: None of the compounds tested had an impact on the matrix stabilities and matrix effect.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioanalysisSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207