ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2025
Categorizing Concentration Confidence: A Framework for Reporting Concentration Measures from Mass Spectrometry-Based Assays.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInnovation in mass spectrometry-based methods to both quantify and perform discovery has blurred the lines between targeted and untargeted assays of biospecimens. Continuous data-concentrations or intensity values generated from both methods-can be used in statistical analysis to determine associations with health outcomes, but concentration values are needed to compare measurements from one study to another to inform policy making decisions and to develop clinically relevant thresholds. As a single solution for discovery and quantitation, new hybrid-type assays derive concentration values for chemicals or metabolites but with varying degrees of uncertainty that may be greater than traditional quantitative assays. There is no current single standard to guide reporting bioassay concentrations or their uncertainty in concentration values from hybrid assays. Even when measures are robust, obtained with high scientific rigor, and provide valuable data toward risk assessment, unknown uncertainty can lead to bias in interpretation of reported data or omission of reported data that does not meet the strict criteria for absolute quantitation.
objectiveThe objective of this commentary is to articulate a scheme that enables investigators across bioanalytical fields to easily report analyte measurement assurance on the same scale from quantitative, untargeted, or hybrid assays that include a range of concentration confidences. DISCUSSION: We propose a simple scheme to report concentrations for targeted and untargeted analytes. Level 1 is a confirmed concentration following established tolerances in a fully quantitative assay while level 5 is a tentative intensity from a typical untargeted assay. This framework enables easy communication of uncertainty in concentration measurements to aid cross-validation, meta-analysis, and extrapolation across studies. It will facilitate interpretation while supporting analytical advancement and allow clear and concise measurement reporting across a broad range of confidences. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15465.
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.