Detection of released free heme by erythrocytes by metabolomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heme analysis by metabolomics Sample Extraction: metabolomics´ analyzes were performed by combining supernatants from two different solvent precipitation process: (i) 400 µL of sodium-phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) was added to 400 µL of whole blood and mixed. Then, 1200 µL of acetonitrile was added, vortexed for 10 seconds and centrifuged at 13,000 g. The same process was repeated (ii) in another 400 µL of sodium-phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) previously added to 400 µL of whole blood and mixed, but replacing the acetonitrile by 1200 µL of methanol, vortexed for 10 seconds, and centrifuged at 13,000 g. Both supernatants were transferred to a new test tube and mixed. The organic solvents were evaporated at nitrogen flow, and the extracted resuspended in 1 mL of 2% acetic acid water solution for the analysis by LC-HRMS. LC-HRMS analysis: The analytical platform used was an AccelaLC (ThermoFisher Scientific, Bremen, Germany) coupled to a QExactive Orbitrap Plus (MS) mass spectrometer (ThermoFisher Scientific, Bremen, Germany). Non-Target statistical analyzes were performed using a differential analysis platform, the SIEVE® software version 2.1 (ThermoFisher Scientific, Rockford, USA). The masses selected from the analysis of SIEVE were searched for in two different databases of human metabolites: Human Metabolome Database (HMDB; The metabolomics Innovation Center, Canada, USA) and MetabolomicsDatabase (METLIN ™; California, USA). Chemometrics: The raw data acquired with LC–HRMS were directly processed with Sieve applying the experiment type defined as “Small Molecule”, “Chromatographic Alignment and Framing”, and “Two Sample Differential Analysis” options. Sieve® software operated in two steps, comprising a first alignment of the chromatogram employing a ChromAlign™ algorithm, and second, a recursive base-peak framing, where spectral data from samples in the experiment were grouped by relative intensity. The data matrix was constructed by Sieve with the samples as observations, the m/z values and retention time pairs as the response variables, identifying statistically significant abundance differences in the signal intensity of m/z values among different samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".