Determination and Confirmation of the Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning Toxin, Domoic Acid, in Shellfish from Scotland by Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 1998 and early 1999, shellfish samples from sites in Scotland were found to contain the amnesic shellfish poisoning toxin, domoic acid (DA). Two different techniques, liquid chromatography (LC) with UV diode-array detection and LC with mass spectrometric (MS) detection, were used to detect and confirm DA in shellfish extracts. The LC/UV method was validated for routine monitoring by recovery experiments on spiked mussel and scallop tissues with a certified mussel tissue used as reference material. Crude extracts of selected samples as well as extracts cleaned with strong anion exchange (SAX) were analyzed by both LC/UV and LC/MS. Good correlation (linear regression r2 = 0.996, slope = 0.93) between the 2 methods was found for cleaned extracts. Analyses of crude extracts by LC/UV produced false-positive results in 2 crab samples, whereas LC/MS analyses gave accurate results. It was concluded that LC/UV is a valid approach for routine monitoring of DA in shellfish when cleanup is performed with a SAX cartridge to prevent false positives. A variety of shellfish species were surveyed for DA content, including Pecten maximus (king scallops), Chlamys opercularis (queen scallop), Mytilus edulis (blue mussels), Cancer pugaris (crab), and Ensis ensis (razor fish). The highest concentration of DA was 105 microg/g in Pecten maximus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".