ArticlePloS one2024
Advancing the application of pXRF for animal samples.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Detect and Trace: An Australian Field Trial Using Machine-Learning Tools to Combat Illegal Wildlife Trade.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.