MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169437211 · doi:10.1139/v07-086

Comparative studies of univariate and multivariate optimizations for manganese determination in antihypertensive drugs by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry

2007· article· en· W2169437211 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Josianne Nicácio Silveira, Paulo Celso Pereira Lara, Michelle Batista Dias, Clésia C. Nascentes, Cynthia Demicheli, José Bento Borba da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryUnivariateChromatographyAtomic absorption spectroscopyMass spectrometryMultivariate statisticsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ManganeseFactorial experimentMatrix (chemical analysis)Certified reference materialsDetection limitMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative studies using the univariate and multivariate optimizations (factorial design) were undertaken to determine manganese in antihypertensive drugs by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (ET AAS). For the univariate method, the optimum pyrolysis and atomization temperatures were 500 and 2200 °C, and for multivariate analysis, the temperatures were 500 and 2400 °C, respectively. No differences were observed between the methods with respect to the slopes of the calibration curves, recoveries, results for certified urine samples for the two levels, and the averages of the intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CV) using Student t and F tests as a statistical tool (P < 0.05). Calibration was performed by matrix matching. All other studies were made using the optimized multivariate conditions. The characteristic mass was of 0.68 ± 0.17 pg (the recommended mass is 0.60 pg). The limits of detection and quantification were 0.23 and 0.77 µg L -1 , respectively. Intra- and inter-assay studies on the drug spiked with 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 µg L -1 of Mn yielded mean results of 3.6 ± 1.9% and 9.6 ± 2.2%, respectively. For the intra-assay evaluation, seven samples of each concentration were evaluated for Mn on the same day, whereas, for the inter-assay study, these solutions were analyzed in three replicates during three consecutive days. Recovery studies on the drug spiked with three levels of Mn (n = 7 for each level) furnished results between 101.4 ± 17.2% and 106.6 ± 7.5%. The results of a certified urine sample analysis (two levels of Mn) agreed at a 95% level of confidence. Forty eight antihy pertensive drug samples were analyzed, and the drug contents varied between 2.9 ng and 1.9 µg capsule -1 .Key words: manganese, antihypertensive drugs, electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry, multivariate optimization.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207