Potential application of mass spectrometry imaging in pharmacokinetic studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry is the gold standard analytical platform for the quantification of drugs, metabolites, and biomarkers in biological samples, it cannot localise them in target tissues.The localisation and quantification of drugs and/or their associated metabolites in target tissues is a more direct measure of local drug exposure, biodistribution, efficacy, and regional toxicity compared to the traditional substitute studies using plasma.Therefore, combining high spatial resolution imaging functionality with the superior selectivity and sensitivity of mass spectrometry into one analytical technique will be a valuable tool for targeted localisation and quantification of drugs, metabolites, and biomarkers in tissues.Mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) is a tagless analytical technique that allows for the direct localisation and quantification of drugs, metabolites, and biomarkers in biological tissues, and has been used extensively in pharmaceutical research.The overall goal of this current review is to provide a detailed description of the working principle of MSI and its application in pharmacokinetic studies encompassing absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity processes, followed by a discussion of the strategies for addressing the challenges associated with the functional utility of MSI in pharmacokinetic studies that support drug development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".