ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2020
Analytical considerations for postmortem metabolomics using GC-high-resolution MS.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolic footprint of sepsis and septic shock: A narrative review.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- UPLC/Q-TOF MS-based femoral muscle metabolomic analysis under high-temperature: a proof of concept for postmortem interval estimation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Postmortem Metabolomics: Strategies to Assess Time-Dependent Postmortem Changes of Diazepam, Nordiazepam, Morphine, Codeine, Mirtazapine and Citalopram.Metabolites · 2021Article
- Hyphenated high-resolution mass spectrometry-the "all-in-one" device in analytical toxicology?Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Review
- Omics era in forensic medicine: towards a new ageTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metabolomics studies that aim to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the entirety of small endogenous biomolecules in an organism are widely conducted in the clinical setting. They also become more and more popular in the field of forensics (toxicology), e.g., to assist in postmortem investigations by objective postmortem interval estimation. However, other issues in postmortem toxicology, such as the phenomenon of (time-dependent) postmortem redistribution, have not yet been tackled by metabolomics studies. Hence, the aim of the current study was to develop an (un)targeted gas chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry-based method for endogenous metabolites as a tool for large-scale (un)targeted human postmortem metabolomics investigations (e.g., to objectively assess PMR) with thorough analytical evaluation of this method to ensure fitness-to-purpose in terms of reliability and robustness. This was achieved by using a targeted metabolite subset (n = 56) and a targeted processing workflow. Evaluation experiments have shown that using an artificial matrix (revised simulated body fluid (rSBF) + 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA)) for calibration purposes, all parameters lay within the scope of the method (sensitivity, selectivity, calibration model, accuracy, precision, processed sample stability, and extraction efficiency). When applying this method to large-scale studies, samples should be run in randomized order if analysis time is expected to exceed 18-24 h and potential biomarkers that are found with this method should be verified by a specialized, targeted method (e.g., by using standard addition in authentic matrix for quantification purposes). Overall, the current method can be successfully used for conduction of time-dependent postmortem metabolomics investigations. Graphical abstract.
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.