ArticleThe AAPS journal2015
Calculations for Adjusting Endogenous Biomarker Levels During Analytical Recovery Assessments for Ligand-Binding Assay Bioanalytical Method Validation.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best practices in the application of parallelism for biomarker assay validation.The AAPS journal · 2026Review
- Recent advances in mass spectrometry-based bioanalytical methods for endogenous biomarkers analysis in transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- Prophylactic action of ayahuasca in a non-human primate model of depressive-like behavior.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Quality Controls in Ligand Binding Assays: Recommendations and Best Practices for Preparation, Qualification, Maintenance of Lot to Lot Consistency, and Prevention of Assay Drift.The AAPS journal · 2019Article
- Recommendations for Use and Fit-for-Purpose Validation of Biomarker Multiplex Ligand Binding Assays in Drug Development.The AAPS journal · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is often necessary to adjust for detectable endogenous biomarker levels in spiked validation samples (VS) and in selectivity determinations during bioanalytical method validation for ligand-binding assays (LBA) with a matrix like normal human serum (NHS). Described herein are case studies of biomarker analyses using multiplex LBA which highlight the challenges associated with such adjustments when calculating percent analytical recovery (%AR). The LBA test methods were the Meso Scale Discovery V-PLEX® proinflammatory and cytokine panels with NHS as test matrix. The NHS matrix blank exhibited varied endogenous content of the 20 individual cytokines before spiking, ranging from undetectable to readily quantifiable. Addition and subtraction methods for adjusting endogenous cytokine levels in %AR calculations are both used in the bioanalytical field. The two methods were compared in %AR calculations following spiking and analysis of VS for cytokines having detectable endogenous levels in NHS. Calculations for %AR obtained by subtracting quantifiable endogenous biomarker concentrations from the respective total analytical VS values yielded reproducible and credible conclusions. The addition method, in contrast, yielded %AR conclusions that were frequently unreliable and discordant with values obtained with the subtraction adjustment method. It is shown that subtraction of assay signal attributable to matrix is a feasible alternative when endogenous biomarkers levels are below the limit of quantitation, but above the limit of detection. These analyses confirm that the subtraction method is preferable over that using addition to adjust for detectable endogenous biomarker levels when calculating %AR for biomarker LBA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.