Comparison of four clinically validated testosterone LC-MS/MS assays: Harmonization is an attainable goal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Immunoassays and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assays are commonly employed in clinical laboratories for measurement of total testosterone in serum. Results obtained from either of these methodologies compare poorly due to differences in calibration and/or inadvertent detection of interfering substances by the immunoassays. Standardization efforts are underway, but recent studies indicate that accuracy remains an issue. METHODS: This study compares the results from four independently developed and validated LC-MS/MS assays for total testosterone. The calibration for each assay was verified using National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard Reference Material 971. RESULTS: Initially, one of the four assays had a mean percent difference of +11.44%, compared to the All Method Mean, but following re-verification of all five non-zero calibrator concentrations with the NIST SRM 971, the mean percent difference decreased to -4.88%. Subsequently, the agreement between all four assays showed a mean bias of <5% across the range of all testosterone concentrations (0.13-38.10 nmol/L; 3.7-1098 ng/dL), including at low concentrations of <1 nmol/L (<29 ng/dL). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent agreement between four independently developed LC-MS/MS assays demonstrates that harmonization using standard reference material is attainable. However, as we found in this study, to ensure accurate calibration it is critical to validate the concentrations of new lots of calibrators.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".