Impact of hemolysis during sample collection: How different is drug concentration in hemolyzed plasma from that of normal plasma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemolysis is a common phenomenon in clinical studies. Despite the growing interest in hemolysis matrix effect, how hemolysis impacts the representability of hemolyzed plasma samples was rarely evaluated. The purpose of this research is to perform such an evaluation by theoretical consideration and experiment. A formula for estimating the impact is proposed, which includes the degree of hemolysis and the drug's red blood cell (RBC): plasma concentration ratio. The impact of hemolysis on the representability of hemolyzed plasma samples is compound-dependant. Given the same degree of hemolysis, the stronger a drug binds to RBCs, the more significant the impact of hemolysis. For a drug with high affinity to RBCs, the results of hemolyzed plasma samples may not be useful even though they are accurate. There is an overall agreement between theoretical predication and experimental results. Among the ten different drug compounds tested, only methazolamide, which binds strongly to RBCs, showed significant change in plasma concentration due to hemolysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".