Harmonizing lipidomics: NIST interlaboratory comparison exercise for lipidomics using SRM 1950–Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the lipidomics field continues to advance, self-evaluation within the community is critical. Here, we performed an interlaboratory comparison exercise for lipidomics using Standard Reference Material (SRM) 1950-Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma, a commercially available reference material. The interlaboratory study comprised 31 diverse laboratories, with each laboratory using a different lipidomics workflow. A total of 1,527 unique lipids were measured across all laboratories and consensus location estimates and associated uncertainties were determined for 339 of these lipids measured at the sum composition level by five or more participating laboratories. These evaluated lipids detected in SRM 1950 serve as community-wide benchmarks for intra- and interlaboratory quality control and method validation. These analyses were performed using nonstandardized laboratory-independent workflows. The consensus locations were also compared with a previous examination of SRM 1950 by the LIPID MAPS consortium. While the central theme of the interlaboratory study was to provide values to help harmonize lipids, lipid mediators, and precursor measurements across the community, it was also initiated to stimulate a discussion regarding areas in need of improvement.
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 | 0.072 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".