Ultra‐high performance supercritical fluid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry for antidoping analyses: Assessment of the inter‐laboratory reproducibility with urine samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the interlaboratory reproducibility of ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry method for routine antidoping analyses. To do so, a set of 21 doping agents, spiked in urine and analyzed after dilute and shoot treatment, was used to assess the variability of their retention times between four different laboratories, all equipped with the same chromatographic system and with the same ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography stationary phase chemistry. The average relative standard deviations (RSD%) demonstrated a good reproducibility of the retention times for 19 out of 21 analytes, with RSD% values below 3.0%. Only for two substances, namely fenbutrazate and niketamide, the retention was not repeatable between laboratories, with RSD% of approximately 15% in both cases. This behaviour was associated with (a) the low organic modifier percentage (around 2-4%) in the mobile phase at the corresponding retention times, and (b) the influence of the system volume on poorly retained analytes. An analysis on seven "blind" urines was subsequently carried out in the same four laboratories. In these blind samples, either one, two, or none of the 21 doping agents previously analyzed were present at an unknown concentration. Each laboratory had to perform the identification of the compounds in the samples and estimate their concentrations. All laboratories assigned all target analytes correctly in all blind urine samples and provide a comparable estimation of their concentrations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".