Bioanalytical Uncertainty Assessment of Ultra‐High‐Performance Liquid Chromatography‐High Resolution Mass Spectrometry Method for Caffeine and Lidocaine in Equine Antidoping: A Dual Perspective on Bottom‐up and Top‐Down Approaches

The quality of quantitative results in bioanalysis requires not only a validated analytical method but also a rigorous estimation of measurement uncertainty. This study examines the challenges associated with the implementation of two distinct approaches in equine anti-doping control for the assessment of uncertainty associated with an ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry quantitative method for caffeine and lidocaine in horse urine. The bottom-up approach, based on the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (ISO GUM), was compared to the top-down approach using β-content, γ-confidence tolerance intervals (β,γ-CCTI) via F-test. The key limitation of the ISO GUM method was accurately quantifying the various uncertainty components; it gives standardized uncertainty estimates but requires detailed assumptions and modeling about error sources. The direct application of the GUM method imposes the beforehand correction of the matrix effect to provide reliable results. Parallelly, the chemometric approach β,γ-CCTI offers more flexible and realistic estimations. Four combinations of β and γ were investigated to assess their influence on uncertainty interval width: β = 66.7% and 80%; γ = 90% and 95%; and the method was evaluated under repeatability and intermediate precision conditions through the use of advanced computation that adjusts for matrix effects and proves more straightforward for capturing variability inherent in experimental data. The top-down approach is a reliable alternative for routine use and, particularly, for ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, with the fact that a known proportion β of future results will be within predefined acceptance limits.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Separation Science
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.70308
Primary Topic
Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bioanalytical Uncertainty Assessment of Ultra‐High‐Performance Liquid Chromatography‐High Resolution Mass Spectrometry Method for Caffeine and Lidocaine in Equine Antidoping: A Dual Perspective on Bottom‐up and Top‐Down Approaches

Taoufiq Saffaj, Fayssal Jhilal, Maha El-Hamdani, Fadil Bakkali et al.
Journal of Separation Science
Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
article

Bioanalytical Uncertainty Assessment of Ultra‐High‐Performance Liquid Chromatography‐High Resolution Mass Spectrometry Method for Caffeine and Lidocaine in Equine Antidoping: A Dual Perspective on Bottom‐up and Top‐Down Approaches

Taoufiq Saffaj, Fayssal Jhilal, Maha El-Hamdani, Fadil Bakkali, Taha El Kamli, Lamia Zaari Lambarki, Adnane Benmoussa, Wafaa El‐Ghaly, Fatima‐ezzahra Lahkak, Lhousaine Balouch
article en

Abstract

The quality of quantitative results in bioanalysis requires not only a validated analytical method but also a rigorous estimation of measurement uncertainty. This study examines the challenges associated with the implementation of two distinct approaches in equine anti-doping control for the assessment of uncertainty associated with an ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry quantitative method for caffeine and lidocaine in horse urine. The bottom-up approach, based on the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (ISO GUM), was compared to the top-down approach using β-content, γ-confidence tolerance intervals (β,γ-CCTI) via F-test. The key limitation of the ISO GUM method was accurately quantifying the various uncertainty components; it gives standardized uncertainty estimates but requires detailed assumptions and modeling about error sources. The direct application of the GUM method imposes the beforehand correction of the matrix effect to provide reliable results. Parallelly, the chemometric approach β,γ-CCTI offers more flexible and realistic estimations. Four combinations of β and γ were investigated to assess their influence on uncertainty interval width: β = 66.7% and 80%; γ = 90% and 95%; and the method was evaluated under repeatability and intermediate precision conditions through the use of advanced computation that adjusts for matrix effects and proves more straightforward for capturing variability inherent in experimental data. The top-down approach is a reliable alternative for routine use and, particularly, for ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, with the fact that a known proportion β of future results will be within predefined acceptance limits.

Journal of Separation ScienceVol. 48(10)
Bishop's University (CA), Université Ibn-Tofail (MA), Université Mohammed VI des Sciences et de la Santé (MA), Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II (MA), Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University (MA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.