MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806385439 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25428-2

Tissue storage affects lipidome profiling in comparison to in vivo microsampling approach

2018· article· en· W2806385439 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Roszkowska, Miao Yu, Vincent Bessonneau, Leslie M. Bragg, Mark R. Servos, Janusz Pawliszyn

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vivoEx vivoLipidomeChemistryLipidomicsChromatographySolid-phase microextractionMuscle tissueExtraction (chemistry)BiochemistryBiologyGas chromatography–mass spectrometryAnatomyMass spectrometryBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-invasive in vivo solid-phase microextraction (SPME) was used to investigate the lipid profiles of muscle tissue of living fish. Briefly, mixed mode SPME fibers were inserted into the muscle for 20 min extraction, and then the fibers were desorbed in an optimal mixture of solvents. The obtained lipid profile was then compared and contrasted to that obtained with employment of ex vivo SPME and solid-liquid extraction (SLE) from fish muscle tissue belonging to the same group of fish, following a one-year storage period. Ex vivo SPME analysis of stored muscle samples revealed 10-fold decrease in the number of detected molecular features in comparison to in vivo study. Moreover, in vivo microsampling enabled the identification of different classes of bioactive lipids, including fatty acyls, not present in the lipid profile obtained through ex vivo SPME and SLE, suggesting the alterations occurring in the unbound lipid fraction of the system under study during the storage and also indicating the advantage of the in vivo extraction approach.

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)0.000
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207