MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Quantitative Analysis of Xenobiotics in Blood Plasma through Cross-Matrix Calibration and Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling

2023· article· en· W4389334408 on OpenAlexaff
Nipunika H. Godage, Song S. Qian, Erasmus Cudjoe, Emanuela Gionfriddo

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Measurement Science Au · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Canadian institutionsPerkinElmer Biosignal
FundersUniversity of Toledo
KeywordsAnalyteMatrix (chemical analysis)CalibrationCalibration curveChromatographyPlasmaHuman plasmaChemistryExtraction (chemistry)Biological systemMaterials scienceDetection limitStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the challenges of matrix effects and interspecies plasma protein binding (PPB) on measurement variability during method validation across diverse plasma types (human, rat, rabbit, and bovine). Accurate measurements of small molecules in plasma samples often require matrix-matched calibration approaches with the use of specific plasma types, which may have limited availability or affordability. To mitigate the costs associated with human plasma measurements, we explore in this work the potential of cross-matrix-matched calibration using Bayesian hierarchical modeling (BHM) to correct for matrix effects associated with PPB. We initially developed a targeted quantitative approach utilizing biocompatible solid-phase microextraction coupled with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for xenobiotic analysis in plasma. The method was evaluated for absolute matrix effects across human, bovine, rat, and rabbit plasma comparing pre- and postmatrix extraction standards. Absolute matrix effects from 96 to 108% for most analytes across plasma sources indicate that the biocompatibility of the extraction phase minimizes interference coextraction. However, the extent of PPB in different media can still affect the accuracy of the measurement when the extraction of small molecules is carried out via free concentration, as in the case of microextraction techniques. In fact, while matrix-matched calibration revealed high accuracy, cross-matrix calibration (e.g., using a calibration curve generated from bovine plasma) proved inadequate for precise measurements in human plasma. A BHM was used to calculate correction factors for each analyte within each plasma type, successfully mitigating the measurement bias resulting from diverse calibration curve types used to quantify human plasma samples. This work contributes to the development of cost-effective, efficient calibration strategies for biofluids. Leveraging easily accessible plasma sources, like bovine plasma, for method optimization and validation prior to analyzing costly plasma (e.g., human plasma) holds substantial advantages applicable to biomonitoring and pharmacokinetic studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Measurement Science AuSame topicPesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyFrench-language works237,207