MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603374863 · doi:10.1002/dta.2191

Interlaboratory trial for the measurement of total cobalt in equine urine and plasma by ICP‐MS

2017· article· en· W2603374863 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Agnès Popot, Emmie N. M. Ho, Natali Stojiljkovic, Florian Bagilet, Pierre Rémy, Pascal Maciejewski, Benoît Loup, Ho‐Man Chan, Sabine Hargrave, Rick M. Arthur, Charlie Russo, James B. White, Pamela Hincks, Clive M. Pearce, George Ganio, Paul Zahra, David Batty, Mark Jarrett, Lydia Brooks, Lise‐Anne Prescott, Ludovic Bailly‐Chouriberry, Yves Bonnaire, Terence S. M. Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Testing and Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersDepartment of Health, State Government of VictoriaSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis
KeywordsUrineInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryChromatographyMedicineChemistryInternal medicineMass spectrometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cobalt is an essential mineral micronutrient and is regularly present in equine nutritional and feed supplements. Therefore, cobalt is naturally present at low concentrations in biological samples. The administration of cobalt chloride is considered to be blood doping and is thus prohibited. To control the misuse of cobalt, it was mandatory to establish an international threshold for cobalt in plasma and/or in urine. To achieve this goal, an international collaboration, consisting of an interlaboratory comparison between 5 laboratories for the urine study and 8 laboratories for the plasma study, has been undertaken. Quantification of cobalt in the biological samples was performed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Ring tests were based on the analysis of 5 urine samples supplemented at concentrations ranging from 5 up to 500 ng/mL and 5 plasma samples spiked at concentrations ranging from 0.5 up to 25 ng/mL. The results obtained from the different laboratories were collected, compiled, and compared to assess the reproducibility and robustness of cobalt quantification measurements. The statistical approach for the ring test for total cobalt in urine was based on the determination of percentage deviations from the calculated means, while robust statistics based on the calculated median were applied to the ring test for total cobalt in plasma. The inter-laboratory comparisons in urine and in plasma were successful so that 97.6% of the urine samples and 97.5% of the plasma samples gave satisfactory results. Threshold values for cobalt in plasma and urine were established from data only obtained by laboratories involved in the ring test. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
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 score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Testing and AnalysisSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207