Reusable Solid-Phase Microextraction\nCoating for Direct\nImmersion Whole-Blood Analysis and Extracted Blood Spot Sampling Coupled\nwith Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry and Direct\nAnalysis in Real Time–Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three different biocompatible polymers were tested and\nevaluated\nin order to improve the whole-blood biocompatibility of previously\ndeveloped C18–polyacrylonitrile (C18–PAN) thin-film\nsolid-phase microextraction (SPME) coating. Among all methods of modification,\nUV-dried thin PAN-over C18–PAN provided the best results. This\ncoating presented reusable properties and reproducible extraction\nefficiency for at least 30 direct extractions of diazepam from whole\nblood [relative standard deviation (RSD) = 12% using external calibration\nand 4% using isotope dilution calibration]. The amount of absolute\nrecovery for direct immersion analysis and based on the free concentration\nof diazepam in blood matrix was about 4.8% (desorption efficiency\n= 98%). The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the developed solid-phase\nmicroextraction liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry\n(SPME-LC–MS/MS) method for direct whole-blood analysis was\n0.5 ng/mL. The optimized modification of the coating was then used\nfor an extracted blood spot (EBS) sampling approach, a new sampling\nmethod which is introduced to address the limitations of dried blood\nspot sampling. EBS was evaluated using LC–MS/MS and direct\nanalysis in real time (DART)–MS/MS, where, for a 5 μL\nblood spot, LOQs of 0.2 and 1 μg/mL, respectively, were achieved\nfor extraction of diazepam.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.015 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".