Determination of Glycated and Acetylated Hemoglobins in Cord Blood by Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The characterization of cord blood hemoglobin at the molecular level is a daunting challenge because hemoglobin F (HbF) and hemoglobin A (HbA) coexist in neonatal blood. We developed and validated a method using electrospray time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ES-TOF-MS) that measures, in a single analysis, relative levels of glycated and acetylated hemoglobin and allows the calculation of relative proportions of HbA, HbF(0), and HbF(1) in cord blood. Specific sections of acquired spectra were deconvoluted using a maximum entropy-based approach to true mass scale spectra. Mass precisions were less than 3 ppm with similar accuracies. Intra-interday precisions for α- and γ-chain glycation levels were 2.10%/3.72% and 2.75%/6.79%, respectively. The linearity of the α-chain glycation response was excellent (r(2) = 0.9990). We performed sample analysis on 39 cord blood specimens and found that the glycated α- and γ-chain levels were 2.27 ± 0.21% and 2.38 ± 0.29%, respectively, while the acetylated (G)γ and (A)γ-chain levels were 8.48 ± 0.53% and 7.14 ± 0.74%, respectively. We observed three types of HbF distinguishable by the intensities of γ-chain variants. Two-thirds of cord blood specimens were classified as HbF(I) with an intensity ratio (G)γ/(A)γ of 1.90 ± 0.12. For HbF(II) type (10/39 neonates), the intensity ratio of (G)γ/(A)γ was 3.71 ± 0.28. For three neonates with HbF(III), no (A)γ-chain was detected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".