Evaluation of a Freezer Mill for Bone Pulverization prior to <scp>DNA</scp> Extraction: An Improved Workflow for <scp>STR</scp> Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional methods for bone pulverization typically generate heat, risking stability of DNA sample. SPEX™ has developed cryogenic grinders which introduce liquid nitrogen to cool the sample and aid in the grinding process. In this study, the Freezer Mill 6970 EFM was used with two DNA extraction methods and routine downstream STR analysis procedures. DNA from as little as 0.1 g of bone powder was used to develop full STR profiles after freezer mill pulverization, and the method was reproducible. Further, no contamination was detected upon cleaning/reuse of the sample vials. There were no significant differences in DNA yield, STR alleles detected, or peak heights using the freezer mill as compared to traditional grinding, and successful DNA profiles were achieved from as low as 0.1 g of bone powder with this method. Overall, this work indicates that this cryogenic mill method may be used as a viable alternative to traditional tissue grinders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".