Difference Between Analytical Sensitivity and Detection Limit

Lozano, Diego; Cantero, Miguel

doi:10.1093/ajcp/107.5.619a

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas, the analytical sensitivity is the slope of the calibration curve. The analytical sensitivity indicates the capacity of the method to differentiate between two very close analyte concentrations [14] .…”

Section: Experimental Design Materials and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis data of the accuracy of tests for meat adulteration by real-time PCR

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Experimental Design Materials and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis data of the accuracy of tests for meat adulteration by real-time PCR

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Limit of detection (LOD) is the minimum detectable level of the target analyte that can be distinguished from zero [31]. Seo et al [32] determined the LOD of their COVID-19 biosensor by comparing the output response from various concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen.…”

Section: Figure Of Meritmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sensitivity defines the alteration in the sensor output per unit change in the sensor input [17]. Sensitivity is related to LOD, with improved sensitivity indicated by a significantly lower value of LOD [17], [31], [33].…”

Section: Figure Of Meritmentioning

confidence: 99%

Portable Tools for COVID-19 Point-of-Care Detection: A Review

Saki

Setiawan²,

Wicaksono

2021

IEEE Sensors J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, several methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection have been developed to obtain rapid, portable, cheap, and easy-to-use diagnostic tools. This review paper summarizes and discusses studies on the development of point-of-care devices for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis with comparisons between them from several aspects. Various detection methods of the recently developed portable COVID-19 biosensor will be presented in this review. The discussion is divided into four major classifications based on the target biomarkers of SARS-CoV-2, such as antibodies, nucleic acids, antigens, and metabolic products. An overview of the potential development for future study is also provided. Moreover, basic knowledge of biosensors is also explained for tutoring the implementation of theory into the research of COVID-19 biosensors. This review paper is aimed to provide a tutorial by collecting the information on the development of a point-of-care device for SARS-CoV-2 detection to provide information for further research and propose the new COVID-19 portable diagnostic tool.

show abstract

Assessing the influence of neglected GC-FID variables on the multiple responses using multivariate optimization for the determination of ethanol and acetonitrile in radiopharmaceuticals

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analytical gas chromatography in line with a flame ionization detector (GC-FID) method was developed and validated for direct determination of organic solvents in [18F]fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine ([18F]FET), [18F]fluoromisonidazole ([18F]FMISO) and [18F]fluorothymidine ([18F]FLT). Variables of the splitless time (min) and injection temperature (°C) on the response of analysis time and resolution were optimized with the assistance of a two-level full factorial design and desirability function of Derringer. The proposed procedure was validated following the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Q2 (R1) guideline. Excellent linearity, R2 > 0.990, indicated that approximately 99% of the response variance could be predicted from ethanol and acetonitrile concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 6.0 mg mL−1 and 0.1 to 0.8 mg mL−1, respectively. The proposed procedure has proved to be selective, sensitive, and accurate (90–110%), with excellent repeatability and precision (RSD < 2%). In the robustness analysis, the findings from the calculated Standardized Effects Values (SE) were insignificant (p > 0.05) and demonstrated that the proposed method was robust for a splitless time of 1.0 ± 0.5 min and an injection temperature of 210 ± 10 °C. The proposed method was also successfully used for the quantitative determination of ethanol and acetonitrile in [18F]FET, [18F]FMISO, and [18F]FLT. Both solvents were well separated (R, 4.1–4.3) within 4.5 min. Therefore, the proposed method is relevant for routine quality control analysis of all 18F-radiopharmaceutical derivatives for the direct determination of ethanol and acetonitrile.

show abstract

Difference Between Analytical Sensitivity and Detection Limit

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Meta-analysis data of the accuracy of tests for meat adulteration by real-time PCR

Meta-analysis data of the accuracy of tests for meat adulteration by real-time PCR

Portable Tools for COVID-19 Point-of-Care Detection: A Review

Assessing the influence of neglected GC-FID variables on the multiple responses using multivariate optimization for the determination of ethanol and acetonitrile in radiopharmaceuticals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About