Vitamins D and A can be successfully measured by LC-MS/MS in cord blood diluted plasma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: In widely used protocols for the collection and isolation of cord blood mononuclear cells, investigators are left with substantial volumes of diluted plasma which could be used for other measurements. The aim of this study was to ascertain the validity of umbilical cord blood (UCB) diluted plasma samples for vitamin D, A and E analysis compared to UCB serum samples. Design & methods: Twenty UCB matched samples of diluted plasma and serum were collected. The samples were analysed by two liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods on two separate occasions. Results: The results of 25(OH)D3 obtained by the two laboratories demonstrated close agreement with a mean difference of 0.14. nmol/L [95% confidence interval (95% CI), -6.8 to 7.1]. Both methods demonstrate close agreement for 25(OH)D3 in UCB serum versus diluted UCB plasma; mean difference 2.2. nmol/L [95% CI, -9.5 to 13.9] and 4.1. nmol/L [95% CI, -14.5 to 6.1] for the results from Lab A and Lab B, respectively. Vitamin A was quantified by Lab A in UCB serum and diluted UCB plasma; mean difference 0.07. μmol/L [95% CI, -0.41 to 0.28]. Results of 25(OH)D3 epimer and vitamin E in the diluted UCB plasma were below the limit of quantification, and could not be compared with UCB serum. Conclusions: Diluted UCB plasma can be used for the quantification of retinol and 25(OH)D3 by LC-MS/MS. By contrast, quantification of 25(OH)D3 epimer and vitamin E in diluted UCB plasma is not supported by this study due to limitations in analytical sensitivity. © 2015 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".