ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026
Toward diagnostically relevant isotope-ratio biomarkers: what does MC-ICP-MS still need for standardized measurements?
Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stable isotope-ratio analysis by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) with a multi-collector (MC-ICP-MS) is increasingly used in life sciences, offering mechanistic insight and potential diagnostic specificity. This review asks the following: What limits biomedical isotope-ratio work, and what steps will make results comparable and fit for biomedical interpretation? Our target audience includes analytical chemists, MC-ICP-MS practitioners, liquid chromatography (LC) and capillary electrophoresis (CE) users, metrology and assurance/quality control specialists, and biomedical researchers adopting isotope-ratio workflows. We map the field from bulk delta (δ) values to chemical speciation, species-specific isotope ratios, and spatially resolved readouts. Specific choices in sampling, pre-analytics, separation, sample introduction, and instrument setup are linked to the main sources of bias and to the limits of precision and traceability. Recent progress is synthesized across automated clean-up, LC/ICP-MS and CE/ICP-MS workflows, transient-signal handling, and species-specific isotope dilution with enriched spikes. The review provides practical guidance on baseline correction, peak integration, mass-bias correction, scale realization, and uncertainty budgets. Across studies, the bottlenecks are species instability and interconversion, matrix and space-charge effects, sample-spike mismatch, spectral interferences, lack of species-specific reference materials, and inconsistent operating procedures. We close with an outlook that prioritizes (i) automation and transient-signal processing, (ii) matrix-matched species-specific reference materials, (iii) instrument advances for interference control and coupling efficiency, and (iv) harmonized data-processing standard operating procedures. Together, these steps can enable reproducible multi-site biomedical isotope-ratio workflows and support their translation towards clinical applicability by clarifying where MC-ICP-MS already adds value and where research is still needed.
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.