The meconium method reported low CBD recovery at one extraction stage alongside acceptable overall accuracy. Extraction recovery and the accuracy of the final reported concentration were different validation outputs.
The table separated the metrics
For CBD, the neonatal-matrix paper reported average solid-phase-extraction recovery of 27%, method recovery of 94% and average accuracy of 97% in meconium. These numbers should not be substituted for one another or treated as three estimates of the same process.
The method used calibrated LC–MS/MS analysis with internal standards. A reproducible loss during preparation can coexist with a calibrated concentration that performs acceptably under the validation conditions.
Low recovery does not automatically mean a proportional reporting error
The 27% figure does not establish that every clinical CBD result was underestimated by 73%, or justify multiplying a reported value by a correction factor. Conversely, acceptable accuracy does not demonstrate complete physical extraction of every cannabinoid from every specimen.
Preserve the matrix and analyte
The validated cord panel did not include CBD because recovery there was inadequate. A successful meconium measurement therefore cannot be transferred to cord by assumption. These findings concern analytical performance in neonatal specimens, not a maternal consumed dose, a precise exposure date or a prediction of developmental harm.
Related reading: interpreting cannabinoid assay validation.
Research cited
Jensen and colleagues (2019). Detection of in utero Exposure to Cannabis in Paired Umbilical Cord Tissue and Meconium by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinms.2019.01.002.
Leave a Reply