MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246507410 · doi:10.1177/117693510500100110

Impact of Freeze-thaw Cycles and Storage Time on Plasma Samples Used in Mass Spectrometry Based Biomarker Discovery Projects

2005· article· en· W4246507410 on OpenAlexaff
Breeana L. Mitchell, Yutaka Yasui, Christopher I. Li, Annette L. Fitzpatrick, Paul D. Lampe

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Informatics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProteomeMass spectrometryBiomarker discoveryBiomarkerProteomicsChromatographyChemistrySample (material)BioinformaticsBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass spectrometry approaches to biomarker discovery in human fluids have received a great deal of attention in recent years. While mass spectrometry instrumentation and analysis approaches have been widely investigated, little attention has been paid to how sample handling can impact the plasma proteome and therefore influence biomarker discovery. We have investigated the effects of two main aspects of sample handling on MALDI-TOF data: repeated freeze-thaw cycles and the effects of long-term storage of plasma at –70°C. Repeated freeze-thaw cycles resulted in a trend towards increasing changes in peak intensity, particularly after two thaws. However, a 4-year difference in long-term storage appears to have minimal effect on protein in plasma as no differences in peak number, mass distribution, or coefficient of variation were found between samples. Therefore, limiting freeze/thaw cycles seems more important to maintaining the integrity of the plasma proteome than degradation caused by long-term storage at –70°C.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.307
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer InformaticsSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207