CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 368Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlAdrenal Hormones and DisordersHormonal and reproductive studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Requirement for Mass Spectrometry Sex Steroid Assays in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism

Handelsman, D. J., Wartofsky, L.·2013·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
DOI 10.1210/jc.2013-3375
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CLICK HERE FOR AN UPDATE ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR MASS SPECTROMETRY SEX STEROIDS ASSAYS The accurate measurement of hormones is the pivot of modern endocrinology. Although tracing its roots to ancient writings, the modern scientific discipline came into existence after a series of mid-20th century Nobel Prize-winning achievements in identifying and measuring hormones. Arguably the most decisive step was the invention of immunoassay in 1959 (1), originally for peptide hormones but extended a decade later to nonimmunogenic steroids (2). This armed the nascent discipline with revolutionary impact through the ability to measure virtually every hormone at orders of magnitude lower than had ever been possible before with earlier cumbersome, insensitive, whole-animal bioassays. Yet the pioneers of steroid immunoassay understood its limitations as that decade's delay was consumed in finding the additional workarounds required to create valid formats for immunoassay of small, subimmunogenic molecules like steroids. These essentials comprised solvent extraction, chromatography, and structurally authentic tracers, a triplet of validity criteria. Employing these required skills originally confined steroid measurement to manual methods in specialized laboratories; however, in the 1980–1990s, the steeply increasing demand for steroid measurement in the clinic and laboratory drove assay simplification to adapt steroid immunoassays into popular one-step kits and multiplex assay platform formats. This commodification resulted in “direct” steroid immunoassays, which bypassed all the original triplet of validity criteria (most fundamentally extraction), sacrificing accuracy and specificity for throughput speed and lower cost. Although problems with validity (analytical specificity, accuracy) of direct immunoassays were soon identified and were reported over 25 years ago (3, 4), the fundamental significance of violating these validity criteria resurfaced prominently in the last decade as the accuracy of direct hormone assays came under more stringent scrutiny—and as a solution, affordable and accessible mass spectrometry (MS) steroid assays came into view. The method-specific bias and analytical nonspecificity of direct T immunoassays are worst at the low circulating T levels in children, women, and men with pathological, functional, or experimentally induced T deficiency (5–7) where such direct immunoassays have been famously likened to random number generation (8). By modern standards, putative findings using such suboptimal methods would require verification by more specific MS-based assays. This renders direct T immunoassays methodologically inadequate for high-quality clinical reproductive medicine research. Not surprisingly, aiming to measure circulating (picomolar) estradiol concentrations 10- to 100-fold lower than circulating (nanomolar) T levels that render direct T immunoassays unreliable is clearly problematic. Thus, direct estradiol immunoassays also lack accuracy in children (9), men (10, 11), and postmenopausal (3, 12–15) or aromatase inhibitor-treated (16) women who all share comparably low circulating estradiol concentrations. It is beyond doubt now that direct immunoassays of sex steroids are methodologically inadequate for high-quality clinical research. MS-based steroid measurements have been available for decades, indeed as long as immunoassays (17). Although they always remained the reference method for steroid specificity and structure, MS-based steroid assays were always too expensive and unavailable for routine use in the laboratory to support clinical research because they required highly skilled operators using complex, difficult-to-access equipment. Hence, while remaining the reference method for steroids, MS was too insensitive, expensive, and unavailable for routine clinical research use. All of this changed over the last decade with the advent of bench-top mass spectrometers with sensitivity matching the best immunoassays while retaining reference level specificity and introducing multianalyte capability. Not only does the availability of MS-based steroid assays resolve the problems of direct steroid immunoassays, but multianalyte profiling also ushers in a new era of snapshot profiling of the overlooked importance of steroid pathway fluxes that will broaden the interpretation of clinical studies beyond the standard restricted single analyte-by-analyte analysis. In this context, it is salient that the nonspecificity and single analyte limitations of steroid immunoassays always rendered them inadequate for antidoping testing where MS-based profiling has been standard for decades. Where an elite athlete's pursuit of his or her profession could be ended by a positive antidoping test, detection of banned steroids had to be undertaken at the highest standards of scientific rigor to withstand the most vigorous medico-legal challenge. It is time that clinical research and practice operates under equally h

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2013-3375

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 368

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Handelsman, D. J., & Wartofsky, L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • MedStar Washington Hospital Center (US)
Corresponding author
Handelsman, D. J.
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Publisher
The Endocrine Society
Published
2013-10-01
Volume
98
Issue
10
Pages
3971-3973
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
DOI
10.1210/jc.2013-3375
OpenAlex
W2116024161
Cited by
368
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 2
FWCI
24.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hormonal and reproductive studies
Keywords
testosterone measurement, estradiol measurement, assay standardization
MeSH terms
Humans, Immunoassay, Gonadal Steroid Hormones, Mass Spectrometry, Editorial Policies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review