MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414741196 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.238

A-245 Development and validation of fatty acid analysis in whole blood by GC-FID

2025· article· en· W4414741196 on OpenAlexaff
Yinghua Qiu, Laura Schurman, Andrea Božović, Vathany Kulasingam

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhole bloodFatty acidQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Polyunsaturated fatty acidRed blood cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Fatty acids are essential for cellular function, energy metabolism, and overall health. They serve as key components of cell membranes, energy sources, and precursors for bioactive molecules that regulate inflammation, immune responses, and cardiovascular function. Omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are particularly important for brain development, cognitive function, and cardiovascular health. Whole blood analysis of fatty acids provides a more stable representation of long-term dietary intake compared to plasma or serum. It helps assess metabolic disorders, cardiovascular risk, and inflammatory conditions while guiding personalized dietary and therapeutic interventions. Methods This protocol is designed to assess and validate the analytical performance of a laboratory-developed test for whole blood fatty acid profiling using GC-FID on the Agilent 8890 and to compare its performance to the existing GC-FID method on the Agilent 6890. The validation process consists of four key components: precision, method comparison, accuracy/traceability, and carryover assessment. Twenty-five fatty acid concentrations are reported as relative percentage weight with two decimal places, and the acceptable specimen type for this analysis is EDTA whole blood. The %W of the calibration standard is reviewed to ensure accuracy. All FAMEs (fatty acid methyl esters), except for the methyl ester of DPA n-6 (3.89%W), should have a %W of 4.00 ± 0.01. The % weight of 25 assayed fatty acids is used in the calculation of ratios, sums, index, and score values. A report template is used for data analysis, containing formulas that automatically calculate these values. Results Quantitative analysis was performed using a 25 FAMEs mix. Fatty acid standards were identified based on retention times and compared with chromatographic profiles from the certificate of analysis of the standard mix. All compounds were detected within 15 minutes of GC-FID analysis, with proper peak separation. Precision was expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV%). Within-run CV ranged from 0.1% to 5.1%, while total precision ranged from 0.6% to 14.2%. For accuracy, a strong correlation with the NIST standard was observed (y = 1.024x - 0.135). Additionally, comparison of 50 patient samples with the previous GC method showed good agreement, with a correlation equation of y = 0.9909x + 0.0948 and an R² value of 0.992. Conclusion In conclusion, this method identified and quantified fatty acids, omega-3, and omega-6 accurately and precisely and can be used effectively for routine FAME analysis in whole blood.

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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicMetabolism and Genetic DisordersFrench-language works237,207