MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972583011 · doi:10.1080/10715762.2019.1667992

(5′<i>R</i>)-and (5′<i>S</i>)-purine 5′,8-cyclo-2′-deoxyribonucleosides: reality or artifactual measurements? A reply to Chatgilialoglu’s comments (this issue)

2019· article· en· W2972583011 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFree Radical Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeoxyadenosineDeoxyribonucleosidesDNA damageChemistryHigh-performance liquid chromatographyDNAChromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This rebuttal letter is aimed at refuting the poor and false arguments elaborated by Chatgilialoglu (preceding article) in his response to the position article (Cadet et al. Free Radic Res 2019;53:574–577) that focussed on the putative reliability of the HPLC-MS/MS measurements of five radiation-induced damage to cellular DNA, which included 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyadenosine and the (5′R) and (5′S) diastereomers of 5′,8-cyclo-2′-deoxyadenosine and 5′,8-cyclo-2′-deoxyadenosine (Krokidis et al. Free Radic Res 2017;51:470–482). Unfortunately, none of the main issues we raised on the suitability of the analytical approach and the shortcomings associated with DNA extraction in HPLC based measurement methods of oxidatively generated damage in cells were properly considered in Chatigilialolu’s letter. The main questionable issues include the lack of information on the sensitivity of HPLC-MS/MS analysis, the absence of a dose curve that is essential in the formation of damage and the nonconsideration of artifactual oxidation.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
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 science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.283 · 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