Commutability assessment of new standard reference materials (SRMs) for determining serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D using ligand binding and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Commutability is where the measurement response for a reference material (RM) is the same as for an individual patient sample with the same concentration of analyte measured using two or more measurement systems. Assessment of commutability is essential when the RM is used in a calibration hierarchy or to ensure that clinical measurements are comparable across different measurement procedures and at different times. The commutability of three new Standard Reference Materials® (SRMs) for determining serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], defined as the sum of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 [25(OH)D2] and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], was assessed through an interlaboratory study. The following SRMs were assessed: (1) SRM 2969 Vitamin D Metabolites in Frozen Human Serum (Total 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Low Level), (2) SRM 2970 Vitamin D Metabolites in Frozen Human Serum (25-Hydroxyvitamin D2 High Level), and (3) SRM 1949 Frozen Human Prenatal Serum. These SRMs represent three clinically relevant situations including (1) low levels of total 25(OH)D, (2) high level of 25(OH)D2, and (3) 25(OH)D levels in nonpregnant women and women during each of the three trimesters of pregnancy with changing concentrations of vitamin D-binding protein (VDBP). Twelve laboratories using 17 different ligand binding assays and eight laboratories using nine commercial and custom liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) assays provided results in this study. Commutability of the SRMs with patient samples was assessed using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) approach based on 95% prediction intervals or a pre-set commutability criterion and the recently introduced International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) approach based on differences in bias for the clinical and reference material samples using a commutability criterion of 8.8%. All three SRMs were deemed as commutable with all LC–MS/MS assays using both CLSI and IFCC approaches. SRM 2969 and SRM 2970 were deemed noncommutable for three and seven different ligand binding assays, respectively, when using the IFCC approach. Except for two assays, one or more of the three pregnancy levels of SRM 1949 were deemed noncommutable or inconclusive using different ligand binding assays and the commutability criterion of 8.8%. Overall, a noncommutable assessment for ligand binding assays is determined for these SRMs primarily due to a lack of assay selectivity related to 25(OH)D2 or an increasing VDBP in pregnancy trimester materials rather than the quality of the SRMs. With results from 17 different ligand binding and nine LC–MS/MS assays, this study provides valuable knowledge for clinical laboratories to inform SRM selection when assessing 25(OH)D status in patient populations, particularly in subpopulations with low levels of 25(OH)D, high levels of 25(OH)D2, women only, or women who are pregnant. Graphical Abstract
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 | 0.047 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".