ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2016
Evaluation of Multiple Blood Matrices for Assessment of Human Exposure to Nerve Agents.
Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of dried blood spot sampling for verification of exposure to chemical threat agents.Forensic toxicology · 2025Article
- Current Progress for Retrospective Identification of Nerve Agent Biomarkers in Biological Samples after Exposure.Toxics · 2022Review
- Fluoride reactivation-enabled sensitive quantification of tabun adducts on human serum albumin by GC-MS/MS via isotope dilution.Bioanalysis · 2019Article
- Rapid quantification of two chemical nerve agent metabolites in serum.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2019Article
- Investigation of dried blood sampling with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry to confirm human exposure to nerve agents.Analytica chimica acta · 2018Article
- Bridging the Gap between Sample Collection and Laboratory Analysis: Using Dried Blood Spots to Identify Human Exposure to Chemical Agents.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical samples may be used to determine human exposure to nerve agents through the analysis of specific biomarkers. Samples received may include serum, plasma, whole blood, lysed blood and, due to the toxicity of these compounds, postmortem blood. To quantitate metabolites resulting from exposure to sarin (GB), soman (GD), cyclosarin (GF), VX and VR, these blood matrices were evaluated individually for precision, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. Accuracies for these metabolites ranged from 100 to 113% with coefficients of variation ranging from 2.31 to 13.5% across a reportable range of 1-100 ng/mL meeting FDA recommended guidelines for bioanalytical methods in all five matrices. Limits of detection were calculated to be 0.09-0.043 ng/mL, and no interferences were detected in unexposed matrix samples. The use of serum calibrators was also determined to be a suitable alternative to matrix-matched calibrators. Finally, to provide a comparative value between whole blood and plasma, the ratio of the five nerve agent metabolites measured in whole blood versus plasma was determined. Analysis of individual whole blood samples (n = 40), fortified with nerve agent metabolites across the reportable range, resulted in average nerve agent metabolite blood to plasma ratios ranging from 0.53 to 0.56. This study demonstrates the accurate and precise quantitation of nerve agent metabolites in serum, plasma, whole blood, lysed blood and postmortem blood. It also provides a comparative value between whole blood and plasma samples, which can assist epidemiologists and physicians with interpretation of test results from blood specimens obtained under variable conditions.
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.