MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316895797 · doi:10.1021/ac1018364

Noncooled Capillary Inlet: A Source of Systematic Errors in Capillary-Electrophoresis-Based Affinity Analyses

2010· article· en· W2316895797 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael U. Musheev, Yuri Filiptsev, Sergey N. Krylov

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYork University
KeywordsCapillary electrophoresisChemistryInletCapillary actionElectrolyteElectrophoresisChromatographyCapillary electrochromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Capillary lengthComposite materialMechanical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capillary electrophoresis (CE) serves as a platform for a large family of temperature-sensitive affinity methods. To control the electrolyte temperature, the heat generated during electrophoresis is removed by actively cooling the capillary. Short parts of the capillary, particularly at its inlet, are not actively cooled, however, and the electrolyte in this part is likely to be at an elevated temperature. Owing to their relatively short lengths, the noncooled parts have never been considered as a potential source of artifacts. Here we report for the first time that electrophoresis of the sample through the short noncooled capillary inlet can lead to large systematic errors in quantitative CE-based affinity analyses. Our findings suggest that the noncooled capillary inlet region, in spite of being short, is a source of significant artifacts that must be taken into consideration by developers and users of CE-based affinity methods. We propose a simple solution for this problem: moving the sample through the noncooled inlet into the cooled region by pressure or by a low-strength electric field to save it from exposure to the elevated temperature.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207