Assessing the limit of detection of Fourier‐transform infrared spectroscopy and immunoassay strips for fentanyl in a real‐world setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Drug checking is a harm reduction intervention increasingly used in the context of the opioid overdose epidemic. The aim of the study was to determine the limit of detection for fentanyl of two point-of-care drug checking technologies. DESIGN AND METHODS: Samples tested at point-of-care using Bruker Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and BTNX fentanyl immunoassay strips were sent for confirmatory laboratory analysis using quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (qNMR) spectroscopy. Concentrations by weight were determined and compared to results obtained with point-of-care methods. RESULTS: In total, 283 samples were sent for qNMR analysis; among these, 173 (61.1%) tested positive for fentanyl. As determined by qNMR, fentanyl concentration by weight ranged from 1% to 91%. Among these 173 samples, fentanyl was not detected in 30 (17.3%) samples by FTIR and in 4 (2.3%) samples by test strip. Samples containing fentanyl that went undetected by FTIR had concentrations ≤10%. The four samples containing fentanyl that went undetected by test strip had concentrations ≤5% (i.e. 1%, 3%, 4%, 5%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl immunoassay strips were able to consistently detect the presence of fentanyl in samples at lower concentrations than FTIR spectroscopy. Given that FTIR spectroscopy is able to quantify content, mixture and concentrations on an array of compounds beyond just fentanyl but requires concentrations generally greater than 10%, these findings provide evidence for use of FTIR spectroscopy and immunoassay strips in combination to compensate for the limitations of each technology alone.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".