Richard W Browne1, Brian W Whitcomb. 1. Department of Biotechnical and Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA. rwbrowne@buffalo.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Problems in the analysis of laboratory data commonly arise in epidemiologic studies in which biomarkers subject to lower detection thresholds are used. Various thresholds exist including limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), and limit of blank (LOB). Choosing appropriate strategies for dealing with data affected by such limits relies on proper understanding of the nature of the detection limit and its determination. In this paper, we demonstrate experimental and statistical procedures generally used for estimating different detection limits according to standard procedures in the context of analysis of fat-soluble vitamins and micronutrients in human serum. METHODS: Fat-soluble vitamins and micronutrients were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection. A simulated serum matrix blank was repeatedly analyzed for determination of LOB parametrically by using the observed blank distribution as well as nonparametrically by using ranks. The LOD was determined by combining information regarding the LOB with data from repeated analysis of standard reference materials (SRMs), diluted to low levels; from LOB to 2-3 times LOB. The LOQ was determined experimentally by plotting the observed relative standard deviation (RSD) of SRM replicates compared with the concentration, where the LOQ is the concentration at an RSD of 20%. RESULTS: Experimental approaches and example statistical procedures are given for determination of LOB, LOD, and LOQ. These quantities are reported for each measured analyte. CONCLUSION: For many analyses, there is considerable information available below the LOQ. Epidemiologic studies must understand the nature of these detection limits and how they have been estimated for appropriate treatment of affected data.
BACKGROUND: Problems in the analysis of laboratory data commonly arise in epidemiologic studies in which biomarkers subject to lower detection thresholds are used. Various thresholds exist including limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), and limit of blank (LOB). Choosing appropriate strategies for dealing with data affected by such limits relies on proper understanding of the nature of the detection limit and its determination. In this paper, we demonstrate experimental and statistical procedures generally used for estimating different detection limits according to standard procedures in the context of analysis of fat-soluble vitamins and micronutrients in human serum. METHODS: Fat-soluble vitamins and micronutrients were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection. A simulated serum matrix blank was repeatedly analyzed for determination of LOB parametrically by using the observed blank distribution as well as nonparametrically by using ranks. The LOD was determined by combining information regarding the LOB with data from repeated analysis of standard reference materials (SRMs), diluted to low levels; from LOB to 2-3 times LOB. The LOQ was determined experimentally by plotting the observed relative standard deviation (RSD) of SRM replicates compared with the concentration, where the LOQ is the concentration at an RSD of 20%. RESULTS: Experimental approaches and example statistical procedures are given for determination of LOB, LOD, and LOQ. These quantities are reported for each measured analyte. CONCLUSION: For many analyses, there is considerable information available below the LOQ. Epidemiologic studies must understand the nature of these detection limits and how they have been estimated for appropriate treatment of affected data.
Authors: Gregg E Dinse; Todd A Jusko; Lindsey A Ho; Kaushik Annam; Barry I Graubard; Irva Hertz-Picciotto; Frederick W Miller; Brenda W Gillespie; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ryan C May; Haitao Chu; Joseph G Ibrahim; Michael G Hudgens; Abigail C Lees; David M Margolis Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Richard W Browne; Alpdogan Kantarci; Michael J LaMonte; Christopher A Andrews; Kathleen M Hovey; Karen L Falkner; Ali Cekici; Danielle Stephens; Robert J Genco; Frank A Scannapieco; Thomas E Van Dyke; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gregg E Dinse; Todd A Jusko; Irene Z Whitt; Caroll A Co; Christine G Parks; Minoru Satoh; Edward K L Chan; Kathryn M Rose; Nigel J Walker; Linda S Birnbaum; Darryl C Zeldin; Clarice R Weinberg; Frederick W Miller Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 9.031