MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091898594 · doi:10.1093/jat/bkaa137

Large Differences in Urinary Benzene Metabolite S-Phenylmercapturic Acid Quantitation: A Comparison of Five LC–MS-MS Methods

2020· article· en· W3091898594 on OpenAlexaff
Denise S. Tevis, Andrew Willmore, Deepak Bhandari, Brett A. Bowman, Chloe Biren, Brandon M. Kenwood, Peyton Jacob, Jia Liu, Kristina Bello, Stephen S. Hecht, Steven G. Carmella, Menglan Chen, Éric Gaudreau, Jean-François Bienvenu, Benjamin C. Blount, Víctor R. De Jesús

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Toxicology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsChemistryMetaboliteUrineBenzeneChromatographyBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benzene is a known genotoxic carcinogen linked to many hematological abnormalities. S-phenylmercapturic acid (PHMA, N-acetyl-S-(phenyl)-L-cysteine, CAS# 4775-80-8) is a urinary metabolite of benzene and is used as a biomarker to assess benzene exposure. Pre-S-phenylmercapturic acid (pre-PHMA) is a PHMA precursor that dehydrates to PHMA at acidic pH. Published analytical methods that measure urinary PHMA adjust urine samples to a wide range of pH values using several types of acid, potentially leading to highly variable results depending on the concentration of pre-PHMA in a sample. Information is lacking on the variation in sample preparation among laboratories regularly measuring PHMA and the effect of those differences on PHMA quantitation in human urine samples. To investigate the differences in PHMA quantitation, we conducted an inter-laboratory comparison that included the analysis of 50 anonymous human urine samples (25 self-identified smokers and 25 self-identified non-smokers), quality control samples and commercially available reference samples in five laboratories using different analytical methods. Observed urinary PHMA concentrations were proportionally higher at lower pH, and results for anonymous urine samples varied widely among the methods. The method with the neutral preparation pH yielded results about 60% lower than the method using the most acidic conditions. Samples spiked with PHMA showed little variation, suggesting that the variability in results in human urine samples across methods is driven by the acid-mediated conversion of pre-PHMA to PHMA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical ToxicologySame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207