Interlaboratory Comparison of Two AOAC Liquid Chromatographic Fluorescence Detection Methods for Paralytic Shellfish Toxin Analysis through Characterization of an Oyster Reference Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interlaboratory ring trial was designed and conducted by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science to investigate a range of issues affecting the analysis of a candidate Pacific oyster paralytic shellfish toxin reference material. A total of 21 laboratories participated in the study and supplied results using one or more of three instrumental methods, specifically precolumn oxidation (Pre-COX) LC with fluorescence detection (FLD; AOAC Official Method 2005.06), postcolumn oxidation (PCOX) LC-FLD (AOAC Official Method 2011.02), and hydrophilic interaction LC/MS/MS. Each participant analyzed nine replicate samples of the oyster tissue in three separate batches of three samples over a period of time longer than 1 week. Results were reported in a standardized format, reporting both individual toxin concentrations and total sample toxicity. Data were assessed to determine the equivalency of the two AOAC LC methods and the LC/MS/MS method as well as an assessment of intrabatch and interbatch repeatability and interlaboratory reproducibility of each method. Differences among the results reported using the three methods were shown to be statistically significant, although visual comparisons showed an overlap between results generated by the majority of tests, the exception being the Pre-COX quantitation of N-hydroxylated toxins in post ion-exchange fractions. Intralaboratory repeatability and interlaboratory reproducibility were acceptable for most of the results, with the exception of results generated from fractions. The results provided good evidence for the acceptable performance of the PCOX method for the quantitation of C toxins. Overall the study showed the usefulness of interlaboratory analysis for the characterization of paralytic shellfish poisoning matrix reference materials, highlighting some issues that may need to be addressed with further method assessment at individual participant laboratories.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".