MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380852884 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.3c01200

Simplified Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Methods for Gestagen Analysis in Animal Fat and Liver

2023· article· en· W4380852884 on OpenAlexaffabout
Randy W. Purves, Michelle West, Ratnadipsinh Vaghela, Jana Kinar, Yash Patel, Michael W. Belford, Bryn Shurmer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatographyChlormadinone acetateChemistryIon-mobility spectrometryMass spectrometryLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryExtraction (chemistry)OrbitrapPopulationMedicineResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gestagens, a class of veterinary drugs also called progestogens, are synthetic hormones used to increase feed efficiency and rate of gain in heifers. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency analyzes progestogens melengestrol acetate (MGA), megestrol acetate, and chlormadinone acetate using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Our conventional gestagen method for kidney fat has many time-consuming steps, including solid-phase extraction. A sample preparation procedure having fewer clean-up steps was developed for routine diagnostic analysis of kidney fat and provided similar results faster, and at lower cost. A confirmatory liver method for gestagens, developed using salt-assisted extraction, employed minimal clean-up steps that resulted in high chemical background at the desired lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). Differential ion mobility spectrometry, specifically high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS), was used to filter chemical background in the gas phase. The effect of the ionization probe position on FAIMS parameters, including sensitivity, is described. With LC-FAIMS-MS, chemical background for each gestagen was virtually eliminated, resulting in a quantitative liver method having the desired 0.6 ng/g LLOQ and estimated limits of detection (LODs) up to 140 times lower than LC-MS. Incurred MGA samples, analyzed using kidney fat and liver methods from the same animal, show levels within the quantitative ranges of both methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyFrench-language works237,207