Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39636899›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Advancing the application of pXRF for animal samples.

Kate J Brandis, Roxane J Francis, Kyle J A Zawada, Chris D Hasselerharm, Daniel Ramp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kate J BrandisCentre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6807-0142
Roxane J FrancisCentre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3172-5445
Kyle J A ZawadaCentre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, Australia.
Chris D HasselerharmCentre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, Australia.
Daniel RampCentre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Portable x-ray fluorescent (pXRF) technology provides significant opportunities for rapid, non-destructive data collection in a range of fields of study. However, there are sources of variation and sample assumptions that may influence the data obtained, particularly in animal samples. We used representative species for four taxa (fish, mammals, birds, reptiles) to test the precision of replicate scans, and the impact of sample thickness, sample state, scan location and scan time on data obtained from a pXRF. We detected some significant differences in concentration data due to sample state, scanning time and scanning location for all taxa. Infinite thickness assumptions were met for fish, reptile and mammal representatives at all body locations. Infinite thickness was not met for feathers. Scan time results found in most cases the 40, 60 and 80 second beam scan times were equivalent but significantly different to 20 second beam scan times. Concentration data across replicate scans were highly correlated. The opportunities for the use of pXRF in biological studies are wide-ranging. These findings highlight the considerations required when scanning biological samples to ensure the required data are suitably collected and standardised while reducing radiation exposure to live animals.

Indexed as

Spectrometry, X-Ray EmissionAnimalsBirdsFishesMammalsReptiles

Identifiers

PMID39636899
PMCPMC11620409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.