An interlaboratory capillary zone electrophoresis‐UV study of various monoclonal antibodies, instruments, and ε‐aminocaproic acid lots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capillary zone electrophoresis ultraviolet (CZE-UV) has become increasingly popular for the charge heterogeneity determination of mAbs and vaccines. The ε-aminocaproic acid (eACA) CZE-UV method has been used as a rapid platform method. However, in the last years, several issues have been observed, for example, loss in electrophoretic resolution or baseline drifts. Evaluating the role of eACA on the reported issues, various laboratories were requested to provide their routinely used eACA CZE-UV methods, and background electrolyte compositions. Although every laboratory claimed to use the He et al. eACA CZE-UV method, most methods actually deviate from He's. Subsequently, a detailed interlaboratory study was designed wherein two commercially available mAbs (Waters' Mass Check Standard mAb [pI 7] and NISTmAb [pI 9]) were provided to each laboratory, along with two detailed eACA CZE-UV protocols for a short-end, high-speed, and a long-end, high-resolution method. Ten laboratories participated each using their own instruments, and commodities, showing excellence method performance (relative standard deviations [RSDs] of percent time-corrected main peak areas from 0.2% to 1.9%, and RSDs of migration times from 0.7% to 1.8% [n = 50 per laboratory], analysis times in some cases as short as 2.5 min). This study clarified that eACA is not the main reason for the abovementioned variations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".