Persistence of Crystals in Stored Synovial Fluid Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lack of access to polarized light microscopy is often cited as an argument to justify the clinical diagnosis of crystal-related arthritis. We assessed the influence of time since sampling and preservation methods on crystal identification in synovial fluid (SF) samples under polarized light microscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal, observational factorial study, analyzing 30 SF samples: 12 with monosodium urate (MSU) crystals and 18 with calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystals. Each SF sample was divided into 4 subsamples (120 subsamples in total). Two were stored in each type of preserving agent, heparin or ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), at room temperature or at 4°C. Samples were analyzed the following day (T1), at 3 days (T2), and at 7 days (T3) by simple polarized light microscopy, and the presence of crystals was recorded. RESULTS: The identification of crystals in the MSU group was similar between groups, with crystals observed in 11/12 (91.7%) room temperature samples and in 12/12 (100%) refrigerated samples at T3. Identification of CPP crystals tended to decrease in all conditions, especially when preserved with EDTA at room temperature [12/18 (66.7%) at T3], while less reduction was seen in refrigerated heparin-containing tubes. CONCLUSION: Preserving samples with heparin in refrigerated conditions allows delayed microscopic examination for crystals. Avoiding crystal-proven diagnosis because of the immediate unavailability of microscopy no longer appears justified.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".