Validation of Mitra <sup>®</sup> VAMS <sup>®</sup> as a Blood Collection Technique for Trace Elements Analysis Using ICP-MS/MS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical dosage of toxic and essential elements in blood is well established and the collection method is still by venipuncture. This method has drawbacks and is not suited for everyone. Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) has been shown to have advantages over venipuncture. Materials & methods: Using inductively coupled plasma tandem mass spectrometry, a method for quantifying elements in whole blood sampled on VAMS was developed/validated. Method's performance was assessed by comparison with whole blood results. Results: Validation and performance assessment tests tend to show that most of the targeted elements provides accurate and reproducible results comparing to a method of reference. Conclusion: Overall, VAMS presents good preliminary results to eventually become an alternative to venipuncture for blood sampling for some trace elements analysis purposes.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it