Categorizing Concentration Confidence: A Framework for Reporting Concentration Measures from Mass Spectrometry-Based Assays.

IF 10.1 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmental Health Perspectives Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-12 DOI:10.1289/EHP15465
Lauren M Petrick, David Achaintre, Amith Maroli, Julio Landero, Priyanthi S Dessanayake, Susan L Teitelbaum, Mary S Wolff, Manish Arora, Robert O Wright, Syam S Andra
{"title":"Categorizing Concentration Confidence: A Framework for Reporting Concentration Measures from Mass Spectrometry-Based Assays.","authors":"Lauren M Petrick, David Achaintre, Amith Maroli, Julio Landero, Priyanthi S Dessanayake, Susan L Teitelbaum, Mary S Wolff, Manish Arora, Robert O Wright, Syam S Andra","doi":"10.1289/EHP15465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Innovation in mass spectrometry-based methods to both quantify and perform discovery has blurred the lines between targeted and untargeted assays of biospecimens. Continuous data-concentrations or intensity values generated from both methods-can be used in statistical analysis to determine associations with health outcomes, but concentration values are needed to compare measurements from one study to another to inform policy making decisions and to develop clinically relevant thresholds. As a single solution for discovery and quantitation, new hybrid-type assays derive concentration values for chemicals or metabolites but with varying degrees of uncertainty that may be greater than traditional quantitative assays. There is no current single standard to guide reporting bioassay concentrations or their uncertainty in concentration values from hybrid assays. Even when measures are robust, obtained with high scientific rigor, and provide valuable data toward risk assessment, unknown uncertainty can lead to bias in interpretation of reported data or omission of reported data that does not meet the strict criteria for absolute quantitation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this commentary is to articulate a scheme that enables investigators across bioanalytical fields to easily report analyte measurement assurance on the same scale from quantitative, untargeted, or hybrid assays that include a range of concentration confidences.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We propose a simple scheme to report concentrations for targeted and untargeted analytes. Level 1 is a confirmed concentration following established tolerances in a fully quantitative assay while level 5 is a tentative intensity from a typical untargeted assay. This framework enables easy communication of uncertainty in concentration measurements to aid cross-validation, meta-analysis, and extrapolation across studies. It will facilitate interpretation while supporting analytical advancement and allow clear and concise measurement reporting across a broad range of confidences. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15465.</p>","PeriodicalId":11862,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Health Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":"55001"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12068507/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Health Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15465","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Innovation in mass spectrometry-based methods to both quantify and perform discovery has blurred the lines between targeted and untargeted assays of biospecimens. Continuous data-concentrations or intensity values generated from both methods-can be used in statistical analysis to determine associations with health outcomes, but concentration values are needed to compare measurements from one study to another to inform policy making decisions and to develop clinically relevant thresholds. As a single solution for discovery and quantitation, new hybrid-type assays derive concentration values for chemicals or metabolites but with varying degrees of uncertainty that may be greater than traditional quantitative assays. There is no current single standard to guide reporting bioassay concentrations or their uncertainty in concentration values from hybrid assays. Even when measures are robust, obtained with high scientific rigor, and provide valuable data toward risk assessment, unknown uncertainty can lead to bias in interpretation of reported data or omission of reported data that does not meet the strict criteria for absolute quantitation.

Objective: The objective of this commentary is to articulate a scheme that enables investigators across bioanalytical fields to easily report analyte measurement assurance on the same scale from quantitative, untargeted, or hybrid assays that include a range of concentration confidences.

Discussion: We propose a simple scheme to report concentrations for targeted and untargeted analytes. Level 1 is a confirmed concentration following established tolerances in a fully quantitative assay while level 5 is a tentative intensity from a typical untargeted assay. This framework enables easy communication of uncertainty in concentration measurements to aid cross-validation, meta-analysis, and extrapolation across studies. It will facilitate interpretation while supporting analytical advancement and allow clear and concise measurement reporting across a broad range of confidences. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15465.

浓度置信度分类:基于质谱分析报告浓度测量的框架。
背景:基于质谱技术的量化和发现方法的创新模糊了生物样本靶向和非靶向检测之间的界限。由这两种方法产生的连续数据--浓度或强度值--可用于统计分析,以确定与健康结果的关联,但需要浓度值来比较一项研究与另一项研究的测量结果,为政策决策提供信息,并制定与临床相关的阈值。作为发现和定量的单一解决方案,新的混合型检测方法可得出化学品或代谢物的浓度值,但具有不同程度的不确定性,可能大于传统的定量检测方法。目前还没有单一的标准来指导报告生物测定浓度或混合测定法浓度值的不确定性。即使测量结果可靠、科学严谨,并能为风险评估提供有价值的数据,但未知的不确定性也可能导致对报告数据的解释出现偏差,或漏报不符合严格的绝对定量标准的报告数据:本评论的目的是阐明一种方案,使生物分析领域的研究人员能够轻松地报告定量、非目标或混合测定(包括一系列浓度可信度)的分析物测量保证:我们提出了一个简单的方案来报告目标和非目标分析物的浓度。1 级是在完全定量检测中按照既定容差确认的浓度,而 5 级是典型非靶标检测的暂定浓度。这一框架可以方便地交流浓度测量的不确定性,有助于交叉验证、荟萃分析和跨研究的外推。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15465。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Health Perspectives 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
388
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly peer-reviewed journal supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Its mission is to facilitate discussions on the connections between the environment and human health by publishing top-notch research and news. EHP ranks third in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health, fourth in Toxicology, and fifth in Environmental Sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信