Comparison Between Twenty-Four-Hour Collection and Single Spot Urines for the Detection of Biogenic Amines by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGL) are neuroendocrine tumors that originate from adrenal medulla or extra-adrenal chromaffin cells, respectively. They produce an excess of catecholamines and their metabolites. Abnormal levels of these biomolecules have been also found in pediatric patients with neuroblastoma (NB). Due to the diurnal fluctuation, the laboratory practice recommends the determination of biogenic amines in acidified 24-h urine samples. However, the collection and acidification of specimens cannot be performed easily, especially for children. Spot urines represent an attractive alternative for the detection of catecholamines and corresponding metabolites. Methods: In our study, we enrolled 50 patients with symptoms related to PPGL and we determined the concentration values for both spot and 24-h urine samples using high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS-MS). Since day variations of the urinary concentration are due to fluctuations in renal excretion rather than in production, we normalized the concentration of biogenic amines in spot urine and in 24-h urine collection to urinary creatinine concentration. A correlation study between the normalized levels of biogenic amines was performed using a linear regression analysis model and Pearson's correlation coefficients. Results: We obtained a good correlation of values which suggests an interchangeability of the 24-h and random urine samples. Only for epinephrine a weak correlation was determined. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the sample collection as single spot urine may replace 24-h collection for the detection of urinary biogenic amines by HPLC/MS-MS.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".