Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35534647›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2022

Biomarker Assay Validation by Mass Spectrometry.

Carmen Fernández-Metzler, Brad Ackermann, Fabio Garofolo, Mark E Arnold, Binodh DeSilva, Huidong Gu, Omar Laterza, Yan Mao, Mark Rose, Faye Vazvaei-Smith and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Proteomics data in vitiligo: a scoping review.Frontiers in immunology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Carmen Fernández-MetzlerPharmaCadence Analytical Services, LLC, 1440 Industry Road, Hatfield, PA, 19940, USA. carmen.fernandez-metzler@PharmaCadence.com.
Brad AckermannEli Lilly & Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA.
Fabio GarofoloBRI - a Frontage Company, 8898 Heather St, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6P 3S8, Canada.
Mark E ArnoldLabcorp Drug Development, 221 Tulip Tree Drive, Westampton, NJ, 08060-5511, USA.
Binodh DeSilvaBristol-Myers Squibb Co., Route 206 & Province Line Road, Princeton, NJ, 08543, USA.
Huidong GuBristol-Myers Squibb Co., Route 206 & Province Line Road, Princeton, NJ, 08543, USA.
Omar LaterzaMerck and Co Inc., 90 E Scott Ave, Rahway, NJ, 07065, USA.
Yan MaoBoehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, CT, 06877, USA.
Mark RoseGossamer Bio Inc., 3013 Science Park Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA, 92121, USA.
Faye Vazvaei-SmithMerck and Co Inc., 770 Sumneytown Pike, West Point, PA, 19486, USA.
Rick SteenwykPfizer-Retired, 8739 N Homestead Circle, Irons, MI, 49644, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decades of discussion and publication have gone into the guidance from the scientific community and the regulatory agencies on the use and validation of pharmacokinetic and toxicokinetic assays by chromatographic and ligand binding assays for the measurement of drugs and metabolites. These assay validations are well described in the FDA Guidance on Bioanalytical Methods Validation (BMV, 2018). While the BMV included biomarker assay validation, the focus was on understanding the challenges posed in validating biomarker assays and the importance of having reliable biomarker assays when used for regulatory submissions, rather than definition of the appropriate experiments to be performed. Different from PK bioanalysis, analysis of biomarkers can be challenging due to the presence of target analyte(s) in the control matrices used for calibrator and quality control sample preparation, and greater difficulty in procuring appropriate reference standards representative of the endogenous molecule. Several papers have been published offering recommendations for biomarker assay validation. The situational nature of biomarker applications necessitates fit-for-purpose (FFP) assay validation. A unifying theme for FFP analysis is that method validation requirements be consistent with the proposed context of use (COU) for any given biomarker. This communication provides specific recommendations for biomarker assay validation (BAV) by LC-MS, for both small and large molecule biomarkers. The consensus recommendations include creation of a validation plan that contains definition of the COU of the assay, use of the PK assay validation elements that support the COU, and definition of assay validation elements adapted to fit biomarker assays and the acceptance criteria for both.

Indexed as

Biological AssayBiomarkersChromatography, LiquidMass SpectrometryReference StandardsBiomarkersassay validationbiomarkerscontext of usefit-for-purposeLC-MS/MSregulated bioanalysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.