The Effects of Storage and Additives on Postmortem HbA1c Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HbA1c is used in forensic toxicology to identify undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (DM) and those with poor glycemic control prior to death. HbA1c is typically measured in whole blood collected in tubes containing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). The effect of other additives, including sodium fluoride (NaF), is unclear. Furthermore, the assessment of short- and long-term stability of HbA1c has produced conflicting results. In this study, we collected paired postmortem blood samples in EDTA and NaF tubes (n = 142) to assess their comparability for HbA1c measurement. Stability was assessed by measuring HbA1c at baseline, 2, 3, and 4 weeks postcollection (stored at 4°C) and at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months postcollection (stored at -20°C). We found no significant difference in HbA1c between the two preservatives at any of the time points indicating NaF is a suitable preservative for HbA1c measurement. We also determined that DM status, postmortem interval, and decomposition had no effect on stability.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".