Quantitative determination of opioids in whole blood using fully automated dried blood spot desorption coupled to on‐line SPE‐LC‐MS/MS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opioids are well known, widely used painkillers. Increased stability of opioids in the dried blood spot (DBS) matrix compared to blood/plasma has been described. Other benefits provided by DBS techniques include point-of-care collection, less invasive micro sampling, more economical shipment, and convenient storage. Current methodology for analysis of micro whole blood samples for opioids is limited to the classical DBS workflow, including tedious manual punching of the DBS cards followed by extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) bioanalysis. The goal of this study was to develop and validate a fully automated on-line sample preparation procedure for the analysis of DBS micro samples relevant to the detection of opioids in finger prick blood. To this end, automated flow-through elution of DBS cards was followed by on-line solid-phase extraction (SPE) and analysis by LC-MS/MS. Selective, sensitive, accurate, and reproducible quantitation of five representative opioids in human blood at sub-therapeutic, therapeutic, and toxic levels was achieved. The range of reliable response (R(2) ≥0.997) was 1 to 500 ng/mL whole blood for morphine, codeine, oxycodone, hydrocodone; and 0.1 to 50 ng/mL for fentanyl. Inter-day, intra-day, and matrix inter-lot accuracy and precision was less than 15% (even at lower limits of quantitation (LLOQ) level). The method was successfully used to measure hydrocodone and its major metabolite norhydrocodone in incurred human samples. Our data support the enormous potential of DBS sampling and automated analysis for monitoring opioids as well as other pharmaceuticals in both anti-doping and pain management regimens.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".