Final report on key comparison CCQM-K55.a (estradiol): An international comparison of mass fraction purity assignment of estradiol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the auspices of the Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM) a key comparison, CCQM K55.a, was coordinated by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in 2009/2010. Eleven national measurement institutes and the BIPM participated. Participants were required to assign the mass fraction of estradiol present as the main component in the comparison sample (CCQM-K55.a) which consisted of a bulk estradiol hemihydrate material obtained from a commercial supplier that had been extensively but not exhaustively dried prior to sub-division into the units supplied for the comparison. Estradiol was selected to be representative of the performance of a laboratory's measurement capability for the purity assignment of organic compounds of medium structural complexity [molar mass range 300–500 Da] and low polarity ( pK OW < −2) for which related structure impurities can be quantified by capillary gas phase chromatography (GC) or by high performance liquid chromatography (LC). The majority of participants used a mass balance approach to determine the estradiol content. The key comparison reference value (KCRV) for estradiol in CCQM-K55.a was assigned by combination of KCRVs assigned by consensus from participant results for each orthogonal impurity class. This allowed participants to demonstrate the efficacy (or otherwise) of their implementation of the mass balance approach and to demonstrate that their assigned value for the main component agreed with the KCRV through use of internally consistent contributing methods. The KCRV for the estradiol content of the material was 984.3 mg/g with a combined standard uncertainty of 0.42 mg/g. The individual participant results showed that a relative expanded uncertainty for the purity assignment of 0.2% is a reasonable estimate of the best achievable result by an individual laboratory for a material of this complexity available in this amount at this level of purity. The relative expanded uncertainties reported by laboratories having results consistent with the KCRV ranged from 0.2% to 0.8%. The review of results that were biased from the KCRV showed that two major analytical challenges are posed by the material: the measurement of its water content and controlling for related substance artefact formation during the analysis process. The results displaying a positive bias relative to the KCRV (overestimation of estradiol content) were due to underestimation of the water content of the material, while those with a negative bias (underestimation of estradiol) overestimated the total related substance impurities through a failure to detect and control for artefact formation arising from in situ oxidative dimerization of estradiol in neutral solution prior to analysis. There was however good agreement between all participants in the identification and the quantification of the individual related structure impurities actually present in the sample. The comparison also demonstrated the utility of high-field 1 H NMR for both quantitative and qualitative analysis of high purity compounds. It is noted that all the participants who used qNMR as a major or contributing technique and included it as part of, combined it or confirmed it with a conventional 'mass balance' data estimate, obtained results consistent with the KCRV. Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
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 | 0.032 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.028 |
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".