Cited by 7Spectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research

Measuring haemolysis in cattle serum by direct UV–VIS and RGB digital image-based methods

Open access
Larrán, Belén, López-Alonso, Marta, Miranda, Marta, Pereira, Víctor, Rigueira, Lucas, Suárez, María Luisa, Herrero-Latorre, Carlos·2022·Scientific Reports

Abstract

A simple, rapid procedure is required for the routine detection and quantification of haemolysis, one of the main sources of unreliable results in serum analysis. In this study, we compared two different approaches for the rapid determination of haemolysis in cattle serum. The first consisted of estimating haemolysis via a simple direct ultraviolet–visible (UV–VIS) spectrophotometric measurement of serum samples. The second involved analysis of red, green, blue (RGB) colour data extracted from digital images of serum samples and relating the haemoglobin (Hb) content by means of both univariate (R, G, B and intensity separately) and multivariate calibrations (R, G, B and intensity jointly) using partial least squares regression and artificial neural networks. The direct UV–VIS analysis and RGB-multivariate analysis using neural network methods were both appropriate for evaluating haemolysis in serum cattle samples. The procedures displayed good accuracy (mean recoveries of 100.7 and 102.1%, respectively), adequate precision (with coefficients of variation from 0.21 to 2.68%), limit of detection (0.14 and 0.21 g L–1, respectively), and linearity of up to 10 g L–1.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-022-17842-4

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 7

Authors
Larrán, B., López-Alonso, M., Miranda, M., Pereira, V., Rigueira, L., Suárez, M. L., & Herrero-Latorre, C.
Affiliations
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2022-08-08
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
13523-13523
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4290631857
Cited by
7
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositorio institucional da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (University of Santiago de Compostela) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Spectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Spectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Keywords
hemolysis, cattle serum, UV-Vis spectroscopy, digital image analysis, partial least squares regression, artificial neural networks, multivariate calibration
MeSH terms
Animals, Calibration, Cattle, Hematologic Tests, Hemolysis, Least-Squares Analysis, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review