Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41244469›Full record

ArticleACS omega2025

Systematic Assessment of Matrix Effect, Recovery, and Process Efficiency Using Three Complementary Approaches: Implications for LC-MS/MS Bioanalysis Applied to Glucosylceramides in Human Cerebrospinal Fluid.

Laura Castillo-Ribelles, Jose-Antonio Arranz-Amo, Jorge Hernandez-Vara, Roser Ferrer-Costa, Marta Martínez-Vicente, Clara Carnicer-Caceres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Laura Castillo-RibellesClinical Biochemistry Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona 08035, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9380-7839
Jose-Antonio Arranz-AmoClinical Biochemistry Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona 08035, Spain.
Jorge Hernandez-VaraNeurodegenerative Diseases Research Group-Center for Networked Biomedical Research on Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIBERNED), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona 08035, Spain.
Roser Ferrer-CostaClinical Biochemistry Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona 08035, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8925-3172
Marta Martínez-VicenteNeurodegenerative Diseases Research Group-Center for Networked Biomedical Research on Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIBERNED), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona 08035, Spain.
Clara Carnicer-CaceresClinical Biochemistry Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona 08035, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2388-9503

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evaluation of matrix effect, recovery, and process efficiency is essential in the validation of LC-MS/MS bioanalytical methods, as they impact assay accuracy, precision, and sensitivity. However, guidelines on bioanalytical method evaluation are not harmonized and can occasionally be ambiguous. To address this need, the study presents an integration of three different approaches to assess these parameters within a single experiment. The first approach examined the variability of peak areas and standard-to-internal standard (IS) ratios between different matrix lots to assess the influence of the analytical system, relative matrix effects, and recovery on method precision. The second strategy evaluates the influence of the overall process on analyte quantification. The third approach calculates both the absolute and relative values of matrix effect, recovery, and process efficiency, as well as their respective IS-normalized factors, to determine the extent to which the IS compensates for the variability introduced by the matrix and recovery fraction. Applying these strategies to an LC-MS/MS method for quantifying glucosylceramides in cerebrospinal fluid addresses the challenges posed by limited sample volume and endogenous analytes, while providing a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence method performance and promoting adherence to different guideline recommendations. This study supports the importance of a systematic evaluation of matrix effect, recovery, and process efficiency during method validation. Standardized evaluation methodologies would improve data interpretation, enhance method reliability, and contribute to harmonization in in-house bioanalysis.

Identifiers

PMID41244469
PMCPMC12613129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.