Separating the wheat from the chaff: Observations on the analysis of lysergamides LSD, MIPLA, and LAMPA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a potent psychoactive substance that has attracted great interest in clinical research. As the pharmacological exploration of LSD analogs continues to grow, some of those analogs have appeared on the street market. Given that LSD analogs are uncontrolled in many jurisdictions, it is important that these analogs be differentiated from LSD. This report presents the analysis of blotters found to contain the N-methyl-N-isopropyl isomer of LSD (MIPLA), and techniques to differentiate it from LSD and the N-methyl-N-propyl isomer (LAMPA) under routine conditions. Gas chromatography (GC)-solid phase infrared spectroscopy was particularly helpful. GC-electron ionization-tandem mass spectrometry of the m/z 72 iminium ion also provided sufficient information to distinguish the three isomers on mass spectral grounds alone, where chromatographic separation proved challenging. Derivatization with 2,2,2-trifluoro-N,N-bis (trimethylsilyl)acetamide (BSTFA) also led to improved GC separation. Liquid chromatography single quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC-Q-MS) and in-source collision-induced dissociation allowed for the differentiation between MIPLA and LAMPA based on distinct m/z 239 ion ratios when co-eluting. An alternative LC-MS/MS method improved the separation between all three lysergamides, but LSD was found to co-elute with iso-LSD. However, a comparison of ion ratios recorded for transitions at m/z 324.2 > 223.2 and m/z 324.2 > 208.2 facilitated their differentiation. The analysis of two blotters by LC-Q-MS revealed the presence of 180 and 186 μg MIPLA per blotter. These procedures may be used to avoid inadvertent misidentification of MIPLA or LAMPA as LSD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".