Possible <i>in vitro</i> Artefacts Associated with the Collection and Processing of Blood for Omega‐3 Fatty Acid Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major trial objective of this experiment is to determine whether differences in the collection and processing of anticoagulated whole blood for plasma omega‐3 fatty acid analysis creates in vitro artefacts that may affect results obtained. Previous research has highlighted effects of variables of blood collection, processing and storage on results obtained for total plasma levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the omega‐3 fatty acids of significant interest in cardiovascular health and optimal brain function. While some authors have reported in vitro blood processing artefacts, none have systematically evaluated the combined effects of the key variables associated with collection, processing and storage on the bioanalytic results. Methods: Five subjects will participate, and the following criteria for blood collection will be assessed: 1. Anticoagulant used: K 2 EDTA, K 3 EDTA, Na heparin. 2. Type of vacutainer: glass or plastic. 3. Tourniquet or no tourniquet. 4. Temperature prior to centrifugation: 4°C or room temperature. 5. Time that has passed prior to centrifugation: 0‐10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours and 4 hours. 6. Centrifuge temperature: 4°C or room temperature. 7. Storage temperature: short‐term at 4°C then longer‐term at ‐20°C or ‐80°C. 8. Storage time: days or weeks. Plasma samples obtained under these varying conditions will be analysed for total levels of EPA and DHA, and results will be compared for differences. It is expected that this study will highlight optimum conditions for the collection, processing and storage of plasma samples for measurement of total EPA and DHA levels. Research Support: Industrial Research Assistance Program (Canada) and Nutrasource Diagnostics Inc.
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".