ArticleClinical chemistry2024
Interlaboratory Comparison of Antibody-Free LC-MS/MS Measurements of C-peptide and Insulin.
Article in Clinical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers, Proteoforms, and Mass Spectrometry-Based Assays for Diabetes Clinical Research.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Review
- MRM-based LC-MS method for accurate C-peptide quantitation.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2025Article
- Exploring new frontiers in type 1 diabetes through advanced mass-spectrometry-based molecular measurements.Trends in molecular medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe enhanced precision and selectivity of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) makes it an attractive alternative to certain clinical immunoassays. Easily transferrable work flows could help facilitate harmonization and ensure high-quality patient care. We aimed to evaluate the interlaboratory comparability of antibody-free multiplexed insulin and C-peptide LC-MS/MS measurements.
methodsThe laboratories that comprise the Targeted Mass Spectrometry Assays for Diabetes and Obesity Research (TaMADOR) consortium verified the performance of a validated peptide-based assay (reproducibility, linearity, and lower limit of the measuring interval [LLMI]). An interlaboratory comparison study was then performed using shared calibrators, de-identified leftover laboratory samples, and reference materials.
resultsDuring verification, the measurements were precise (2.7% to 3.7%CV), linear (4 to 15 ng/mL for C-peptide and 2 to 14 ng/mL for insulin), and sensitive (LLMI of 0.04 to 0.10 ng/mL for C-peptide and 0.03 ng/mL for insulin). Median imprecision across the 3 laboratories was 13.4% (inter-quartile range [IQR] 11.6%) for C-peptide and 22.2% (IQR 20.9%) for insulin using individual measurements, and 10.8% (IQR 8.7%) and 15.3% (IQR 14.9%) for C-peptide and insulin, respectively, when replicate measurements were averaged. Method comparison with the University of Missouri reference method for C-peptide demonstrated a robust linear correlation with a slope of 1.044 and r2 = 0.99.
conclusionsOur results suggest that combined LC-MS/MS measurements of C-peptide and insulin are robust and adaptable and that standardization with a reference measurement procedure could allow accurate and precise measurements across sites, which could be important to diabetes research and help patient care in the future.
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.