Coated Blade Spray-Mass Spectrometry as a New Approach for the Rapid Characterization of Brain Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain tumors are neoplasms with one of the highest mortality rates. Therefore, the availability of methods that allow for the quick and effective diagnosis of brain tumors and selection of appropriate treatments is of critical importance for patient outcomes. In this study, coated blade spray-mass spectrometry (CBS-MS), which combines the features of microextraction and fast ionization methods, was applied for the analysis of brain tumors. In this approach, a sword-shaped probe is coated with a sorptive material to enable the extraction of analytes from biological samples. The analytes are then desorbed using only a few microliters of solvent, followed by the insertion of the CBS device into the interface on the mass spectrometer source. The results of this proof-of-concept experiment confirmed that CBS coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) enables the rapid differentiation of two histologically different lesions: meningiomas and gliomas. Moreover, quantitative CBS-HRMS/MS analysis of carnitine, the endogenous compound, previously identified as a discriminating metabolite, showed good reproducibility with the variation below 10% when using a standard addition calibration strategy and deuterated internal standards for correction. The resultant data show that the proposed CBS-MS technique can be useful for on-site qualitative and quantitative assessments of brain tumor metabolite profiles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".