MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411318401 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.11.25329425

Standardizing Nasal Fluid Processing for Respiratory Biomarker Analysis: A Comparative Study of Homogenization and Storage Methods

2025· preprint· en· W4411318401 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Lupancu, Carley Xia, Eldin Rostom, Adam M. Damry

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogenization (climate)Respiratory systemComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Nasal fluid is a valuable medium for biomarker analysis in respiratory diseases due to its accessibility and proximity to relevant pathophysiological processes. However, its heterogeneous nature presents challenges for consistent biomarker detection and quantification. This study aimed to improve protein biomarker recovery and reliability by evaluating different homogenization and storage methods for nasal fluid samples. Methods Mechanical disruption techniques using syringes and commercial BioMasher units were compared for their effectiveness in analyte recovery, and the impact of pre- and post-processing of cryogenically stored nasal samples was assessed. Inflammatory protein biomarkers relevant to respiratory diseases, including interleukin (IL)-13, IL-8/ CXCL8, myeloperoxidase (MPO), CCL11/ eotaxin-1, CCL26/ eotaxin-3, elastase, myxovirus resistance protein 1 (MxA), CCL17/ TARC, CXCL10/ IP-10), and serum amyloid A (SAA), were successfully detected in the processed nasal fluid by ELISA and Luminex assays. Results Significant differences in analyte recovery were observed between homogenization methods, with greater titers of IL-5 and eotaxin-1 measured in samples processed by the syringing method. However, homogenization could be performed either before or after long-term cryogenic storage without significantly affecting protein concentrations. Spike and recovery experiments were also conducted and differences in SAA protein recovery were detected, suggesting that the matrix effects in nasal fluid can affect cytokine recovery, but variations in recovery were not significant for other biomarkers tested. Conclusions These findings demonstrate the potential of nasal fluid as a readily accessible medium with substantial potential to aid diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory diseases. However, given the significant impact homogenization protocols had on analyte recovery, the growing use of nasal fluid as a biospecimen in the respiratory field highlights the critical need for standardized protocol to ensure accuracy and reproducibility in future analyses.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207