MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162142250

Determination of lasalocid sodium in animal feeds and premixes by reversed-phase liquid chromatography: collaborative study.

2008· article· en· W2162142250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Focht

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyRepeatabilityLasalocidAnalyteExtraction (chemistry)Biochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A liquid chromatographic (LC) method for the analysis of lasalocid sodium in premixes, complete animal feeds, and trace-level feeds was collaboratively studied. The method employs a 0.5% HCI acidified methanol extraction followed by 20 min sonication in a water bath heated to 40 degrees C. Samples are then shaken on a mechanical shaker for 1 h and stored overnight, followed by an additional 10 min shaking the following morning. Sample extracts are diluted if necessary with extractant, filtered, and injected onto an LC system. Determination of all lasalocid homologs is by reversed-phase LC with fluorescence detection at 314 nm excitation and 418 nm emission. Eight samples of drug premixes, medicated feeds, and mineral supplements, along with 2 samples for trace-level analysis were sent to 20 collaborators in the United States, Canada, and The Netherlands. Study data were returned by 17 laboratories. Two additional supplemental trace-level samples and a blank feed were provided to 15 of the collaborating laboratories, and test data were received from all 15 participants. For the drug premixes, medicated feeds, and mineral supplements, RSDr values (within-laboratory repeatability) ranged from 1.2 to 19.9%, RSDR values (among-laboratory reproducibility) ranged from 3.4 to 32.3%, and HorRat values ranged from 0.35 to 3.73. For the trace-level samples, only lasalocid A, the predominant homolog comprising > 90% of the sum of all homolog peak area, was quantified. All laboratories correctly identified the analyte. Although some instrument response was reported by a number of laboratories for the blank feed, all but one laboratory's results were well below the 1 mg/kg limit of quantification. RSDr values for the initial 2 trace-level samples were excessive, ranging from 51.6 to 64.4%. RSDR values ranged from 51.6 to 75.7%, and HorRat values ranged from 3.6 to 4.0. Data for the initial trace-level samples indicated that the test samples were improperly prepared to ensure homogeneity, and a new set of supplemental samples was provided to collaborators, with significantly improved results. RSDr values for the 2 supplemental trace-level samples ranged from 1.6 to 2.5%, RSDR values ranged from 5.6 to 9.2%, and HorRat values ranged from 0.43 to 0.62.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyFrench-language works237,207