<i>In Vivo</i> Solid-Phase Microextraction For Tissue Bioanalysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional in vitro or ex vivo bioanalytical quantitative sample preparation methods for the determination of compounds in biological tissues are often coupled with challenges in obtaining an assay representative of the system of interest. The rising interest in in vivo microsampling bioanalytical methods is due to the unique advantages they offer over their in vitro counterparts. In vivo solid-phase microextraction (SPME), a diffusion-based microsampling tool, has been successfully applied in recent studies to various biological systems. This review presents recent trends in tissue bioanalysis using in vivo SPME as a sample preparation tool. Efforts were made to discuss the various bioapplications of the method while highlighting possible strategies for improved sensitivity where needed. In vivo SPME devices currently employed for the various applications have also been described. In addition, we highlight selectivity of a new class of biocompatible coatings that can potentially improve the coverage of metabolites for untargeted metabolomics.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it