MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416580942 · doi:10.5937/scriptamed56-61645

Evaluation of a newly developed LC-MS/MS vitamin D assay

2025· article· en· W4416580942 on OpenAlexaff
Josephine C. Santiago, Ryan Mitchell, William B. Hunt, Paramjit S. Tappia, Dawn C. Scantlebury, Bram Ramjiawan

Bibliographic record

VenueScripta Medica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologyvitamin D deficiencyGold standard (test)VitaminReference valuesLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aim: Globally, deficiency of vitamin D is highly prevalent. Besides the known consequences of vitamin D deficiency to bone health, there is now strong evidence that links low vitamin D status to an increase in the risk for diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease and autoimmune diseases. It is therefore important to have a highly accurate, reproducible and cost-effective test that is highly predictive of vitamin D status and of diagnostic value. This study was undertaken to validate a newly developed high throughput liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) assay against current gold standard assays measured at two independent reference laboratories. Methods: The initial study (n = 40) and follow up study (n = 40) recruited healthy adult men and women volunteers (18 to 55 years old). Vitamin D (25(OH)D) was measured using a targeted LC-MS/MS method. Results: Unexpectedly, data were not consistent with the values for 25(OH)D obtained from the two independent reference laboratories (as evidenced by correlation coefficients and Bland Altman analyses), although the results between the two reference laboratories were in agreement and highly correlated. Conclusion: These findings highlight the continued efforts and needs for harmonisation of results and standardisation of analytical methods for 25(OH)D for diagnostic accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScripta MedicaSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207