Platform for Establishing Interlaboratory Reproducibility of Selected Reaction Monitoring-Based Mass Spectrometry Peptide Assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometry (MS) is an attractive alternative to quantification of proteins by immunoassays, particularly for protein biomarkers of clinical relevance. Reliable quantification requires that the MS-based assays are robust, selective, and reproducible. Thus, the development of standardized protocols is essential to introduce MS into clinical research laboratories. The aim of this study was to establish a complete workflow for assessing the transferability and reproducibility of selected reaction monitoring (SRM) assays between clinical research laboratories. Four independent laboratories in North America, using identical triple-quadrupole mass spectrometers (Quantum Ultra, Thermo), were provided with standard protocols and instrumentation settings to analyze unknown samples and internal standards in a digested plasma matrix to quantify 51 peptides from 39 human proteins using a multiplexed SRM assay. The interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) was less than 10% for 25 of 39 peptides quantified (12 peptides were not quantified based upon hydrophobicity) and exhibited CVs less than 20% for the remaining peptides. In this report, we demonstrate that previously developed research platforms for SRM assays can be improved and optimized for deployment in clinical research environments.
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 | 0.101 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".