It is time for a paradigm shift in drug discovery bioanalysis: from SRM to HRMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It can be argued that the last true paradigm shift in the bioanalytical (BA) arena was the shift from high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet (UV) detection to HPLC with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) detection after the commercialization of the triple quadrupole mass spectrometer in the 1990s. HPLC-MS/MS analysis based on selected reaction monitoring (SRM) has become the gold standard for BA assays and is used by all the major pharmaceutical companies for the quantitative analysis of new drug entities (NCEs) as part of the new drug discovery and development process. While LC-MS/MS continues to be the best tool for drug discovery bioanalysis, a new paradigm involving high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) and ultrahigh-pressure liquid chromatography (uHPLC) is starting to make inroads into the pharmaceutical industry. The ability to collect full scan spectra, with excellent mass accuracy, mass resolution, 10-250 ms scan speeds and no NCE-related MS parameter optimization, makes the uHPLC-HRMS techniques suitable for quantitative analysis of NCEs while preserving maximum qualitative information about other drug-related and endogenous components such as metabolites, degradants, biomarkers and formulation materials. In this perspective article, we provide some insight into the evolution of the hybrid quadrupole-time-of-flight (Qq-TOF) mass spectrometer and propose some of the desirable specifications that such HRMS systems should have to be integrated into the drug discovery bioanalytical workflow for performing integrated qualitative and quantitative bioanalysis of drugs and related components.
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 | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".