Sample suitability and stability in different blood collection tubes for methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, acetone and glycols analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To systematically examine the sample suitability and stability for volatile alcohols (methanol, ethanol and isopropanol with its metabolite acetone) and glycols (ethylene/propylene glycols, EG/PG) in different collection tubes. METHOD: Two pools of whole blood were created and spiked with two levels of volatile alcohols and EG/PG. The spiked whole blood was added to six different blood collection tubes and were kept at different storage conditions. An aliquot was prepared from baseline replicates. Concentrations of volatile alcohols and glycols were analysed by gas chromatography. RESULTS: All blood collection tubes have demonstrated similar performance over different storage conditions, that is, to be statistically insignificant (p>0.05) with the only exception of PG at the high concentration of day 7 at 4°C condition (p<0.05 but clinically insignificant as <clinical acceptable limit (CAL) of 25%). Compared with the baseline, most volatile alcohols showed statistical significance (p<0.05) but were clinically stable for all storage conditions (biases<CAL). Similarly, compared with day 1, most EG/PG were stable up to 28 days at -20°C. Aliquoted samples were clinically stable up to 28 days at -20°C. CONCLUSION: Grey/red/lavender, serum separator tube, plasma separator tube and the newly developed Barricor tubes are all suitable for volatile alcohols and EG/PG analysis. Primary samples are stable for 2 days room temperature, 14 days at 4°C and 28 days at -20°C for volatile alcohols, and 2 days room temperature, 7 days at 4°C, and 28 days at -20°C for EG. Aliquoted samples are stable up to 28 days at -20°C for all volatile alcohols and glycols.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".