Interlaboratory comparison of standardised metabolomics and lipidomics analyses in human and rodent blood using the MxP® Quant 500 kit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Metabolomics and lipidomics are pivotal in understanding phenotypic variations beyond genomics. However, quantification and comparability of mass spectrometry (MS)-derived data are challenging. Standardised assays can enhance data comparability, enabling applications in multi-center epidemiological and clinical studies. Here we evaluated the performance and reproducibility of the MxP® Quant 500 kit across 14 laboratories. The kit allows quantification of 634 different metabolites from 26 compound classes using triple quadrupole MS. Each laboratory analysed twelve samples, including human plasma and serum, lipaemic plasma, NIST SRM 1950, and mouse and rat plasma, in triplicates. 505 out of the 634 metabolites were measurable above the limit of detection in all laboratories, while eight metabolites were undetectable in our study. Out of the 505 metabolites, 412 were observed in both human and rodent samples. Overall, the kit exhibited high reproducibility with a median coefficient of variation (CV) of 14.3 %. CVs in NIST SRM 1950 reference plasma were below 25 % and 10 % for 494 and 138 metabolites, respectively. To facilitate further inspection of reproducibility for any compound, we provide detailed results from the in-depth evaluation of reproducibility across concentration ranges using Deming regression. Interlaboratory reproducibility was similar across sample types, with some species-, matrix-, and phenotype-specific differences due to variations in concentration ranges. Comparisons with previous studies on the performance of MS-based kits (including the AbsoluteIDQ p180 and the Lipidyzer) revealed good concordance of reproducibility results and measured absolute concentrations in NIST SRM 1950 for most metabolites, making the MxP® Quant 500 kit a relevant tool to apply metabolomics and lipidomics in multi-center 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 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 | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".