Carfentanil structural analogs found in street drugs by paper spray mass spectrometry and their characterization by high‐resolution mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carfentanil is one of the most potent synthetic opioids ever developed, with an estimated analgesic potency approximately 20–100 times that of fentanyl and 10,000 times that of morphine. Carfentanil has been appearing in the illicit drug supply in many regions and has been linked to fatal overdose events. A subset of 59 street drug samples obtained in Victoria, B.C., that were confirmed to contain carfentanil were analyzed by mass spectrometry for this study. Carfentanil quantitation by paper spray mass spectrometry ranged from 0.05 to 2.95 w/w% (median = 0.32%) in the original drug sample. Paper spray mass spectrometry analysis also detected two unknown peaks at m/z 380.2 and 381.2 in 31 of these 59 samples (53%). Initial tandem mass spectrometry experiments revealed structural similarities between these unknown compounds and carfentanil, suggesting they were potential structural analogs, possibly arising from incomplete purification during synthesis. High‐resolution mass spectrometry determined the chemical formulas of these compounds as C 23 H 29 N 3 O 2 ( m/z 380.2333) and C 23 H 29 N 2 O 3 ( m/z 381.2137). Literature and tandem mass spectrometry results were used to determine the identity of these potential new psychoactive substances, C 23 H 29 N 3 O 2 as desmethylcarfentanil amide and C 23 H 29 N 2 O 3 as desmethylcarfentanil acid. μ‐Opioid receptor binding modeling determined that the binding poses of these analogs were nearly identical to that of carfentanil with relative binding energy calculations of 0.544 kJ/mol (desmethylcarfentanil amide) and −0.171 kJ/mol (desmethylcarfentanil acid); these data suggest they may share the toxic effects of carfentanil and have similar potencies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".