Development and validation of the TefTex electrostatic wipe for indoor dust sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a cost-effective method for the collection of indoor dust samples for characterization of endotoxin and ß-(1,3)-D-glucan using TefTex electrostatic wipes – pyrogen-free, polytetrafluoroethylene fibre sampling cloths. Trained research technicians visited 39 homes in Vancouver, Canada in 2009–2010 and collected two wipe samples from door tops and door frames in a bedroom and livingroom.Vacuum-collected dust samples were also obtained from flooring. Glucan and endotoxin were measured by LAL, using previously described methods. The combined endotoxin levels found on the 2 wipes were correlated with endotoxin content of vacuum collected dust (r = 0.262, p = 0.021). Similarly, combined glucan results for the wipes were correlated well with vacuum collected dust samples (r = 0.326, p = 0.004). These results suggest that TefTex wipes may provide a meaningful point-in-time means of ranking endotoxin and glucan content of dust in the home environment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".