ArticleFrontiers in chemistry2022
A New Strategy for Efficient Retrospective Data Analyses for Designer Benzodiazepines in Large LC-HRMS Datasets.
Article in Frontiers in chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Soft Independent Modeling of Class Analogies for the Screening of New Psychoactive Substances through UPLC-HRMS/MS.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of New Psychoactive Substances in Relation to Traditional Drugs of Abuse in Clinical Oral Fluid Samples.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
- Overview of systematic toxicological analysis strategies and their coverage of substances in forensic toxicology.Analytical science advances · 2023Review
- Scalable Analysis of Untargeted LC-HRMS Data by Means of SQL Database Archiving.Analytical chemistry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The expanding and dynamic market of new psychoactive substances (NPSs) poses challenges for laboratories worldwide. The retrospective data analysis (RDA) of previously analyzed samples for new targets can be used to investigate analytes missed in the first data analysis. However, RDA has historically been unsuitable for routine evaluation because reprocessing and reevaluating large numbers of forensic samples are highly work- and time-consuming. In this project, we developed an efficient and scalable retrospective data analysis workflow that can easily be tailored and optimized for groups of NPSs. The objectives of the study were to establish a retrospective data analysis workflow for benzodiazepines in whole blood samples and apply it on previously analyzed driving-under-the-influence-of-drugs (DUID) cases. The RDA workflow was based on a training set of hits in ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight-mass spectrometry (UHPLC-QTOF-MS) data files, corresponding to common benzodiazepines that also had been analyzed with a complementary UHPLC-tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) method. Quantitative results in the training set were used as the true condition to evaluate whether a hit in the UHPLC-QTOF-MS data file was true or false positive. The training set was used to evaluate and set filters. The RDA was used to extract information from 47 DBZDs in 13,514 UHPLC-QTOF-MS data files from DUID cases analyzed from 2014 to 2020, with filters on the retention time window, count level, and mass error. Sixteen designer and uncommon benzodiazepines (DBZDs) were detected, where 47 identifications had been confirmed by using complementary methods when the case was open (confirmed positive finding), and 43 targets were not reported when the case was open (tentative positive finding). The most common tentative and confirmed findings were etizolam (
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.