MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390125013 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v16n1p22

New Method for Analyzing Tyramine by Spectrofluorimetry: Application to Fish

2023· article· en· W4390125013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Papa Adama Ndione, Moussa Mbaye, Latyr Ndione, Khémesse Kital, Lamine Cissé, Sérigne Omar Sarr, Djibril Fall, François Delattre, Atanasse Coly, Mame Diabou Gaye‐Seye, Alphonse Tine

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTyramineCadaverineTryptamineChemistryPutrescineChromatographySpermineDetection limitBiogenic amineFish <Actinopterygii>SpermidineHistamineAgmatineBiochemistryPharmacologyFisheryNeurotransmitterEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for direct spectrofluorimetric analysis of tyramine in various fish samples was established. Low limits of detection (LOD) between 0.53 ng/mL and 1.40 ng/mL and limits of quantification (LOQ) between 1.76 ng/mL and 4.68 ng/mL were obtained. Also, low values of relative standard deviations (RSD) between 0.30 % and 0.58 % were obtained; confirming good reproducibility of our measurements. The application of this method to our samples allowed the detection of tyramine with satisfactory recovery rates between 93.68 % and 106.60 %. Interference studies with different biogenic amines have shown that the determination of tyramine can be done without major problems in the presence of spermine, spermidine, and histamine. However, special attention should be paid when tyramine is determined in the presence of agmatine, cadaverine or putrescine. In all cases, the determination of tyramine is more influenced by the presence of tryptamine or dopamine in the sample.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207