GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Jun 21, 2017 | Blogs, Food / Beverage | 0 comments
A recent study published by the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI), pointed out, in a study of 109 people tested, that skin prick tests are not 100 percent reliable. In the study, participants were subjected to oral food challenges prior to skin testing in which 50 percent of individuals had no reaction. It was also discovered that blood tests were not full-proof even though they measure the presence of IgE antibodies to specific foods. These results are not surprising given that 50 to 60 percent of tests result in false-positives.
This occurs for several reasons:
It would seem, therefore, that more reliable tests are needed which brings me back to the lab. Today, blood tests are commonly interpreted using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) despite a high incidence of false-positives. ELISA is affordable, straightforward, and provides effective testing results when used in conjunction with a person’s medical history. However mass spectrometry is more effective in detecting allergens due to its sensitivity, ability to correspond to unique allergen peptides, and its multi-allergen capabilities. Yes, mass spec is more expensive, but because of their versatility and sensitivity, you get a swift ROI while reducing those pesky false positives. You can learn more about Mass Spectrometry Myths in one of my previous posts.
Want to learn more about mass spectrometry and food allergen testing? Visit our Allergen page or read previous blog posts.
Regulated laboratories are evolving faster than ever. New analytical modalities, higher sample throughput, increasing regulatory scrutiny, and leaner teams are reshaping how work gets done. At the same time, expectations for data integrity, standardization, and operational efficiency continue to increase complexity and/or scope. In this environment, LC-MS software is no longer simply an instrument control platform—it has become a critical part of a laboratory’s quality management system. The question is no longer whether your lab has changed, but whether your software has evolved to support the way regulated labs operate today, and if they are ready and able to meet the demands, they will face tomorrow.
Analyst software has long been a trusted foundation in regulated LC-MS laboratories—and for many, it still performs reliably today. But regulated environments are evolving faster than ever. As labs transition to Windows 11, strengthen cybersecurity policies, modernize IT infrastructure, and prepare for future compliance expectations, software decisions are no longer just about what works today—they’re about managing tomorrow’s risk. Analyst will not be supported on Windows 11. While some labs may continue operating in unsupported environments temporarily, the bigger question is: when that risk becomes reality, will your lab be reacting under pressure—or executing a planned mitigation strategy with confidence?
As regulatory scrutiny increases and detection requirements tighten, laboratories are facing a new question: How can TFA be measured reliably, sensitively, and at scale?
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network