Interlaboratory study to evaluate the robustness of capillary electrophoresis‐mass spectrometry for peptide mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collaborative study on the robustness and portability of a capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry method for peptide mapping was performed by an international team, consisting of 13 independent laboratories from academia and industry. All participants used the same batch of samples, reagents and coated capillaries to run their assays, whereas they utilized the capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry equipment available in their laboratories. The equipment used varied in model, type and instrument manufacturer. Furthermore, different types of sheath-flow capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry interfaces were used. Migration time, peak height and peak area of ten representative target peptides of trypsin-digested bovine serum albumin were determined by every laboratory on two consecutive days. The data were critically evaluated to identify outliers and final values for means, repeatability (precision within a laboratory) and reproducibility (precision between laboratories) were established. For relative migration time the repeatability was between 0.05 and 0.18% RSD and the reproducibility between 0.14 and 1.3% RSD. For relative peak area repeatability and reproducibility values obtained were 3-12 and 9-29% RSD, respectively. These results demonstrate that capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry is robust enough to allow a method transfer across multiple laboratories and should promote a more widespread use of peptide mapping and other capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry applications in biopharmaceutical analysis and related fields.
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 | 0.084 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".