Automated MRM / PRM quantitation

Fully automated analysis of MRM/PRM data

From raw vendor files to a validated quant table — peak picking, integration, calibration and QC, with zero manual review. Here it is, benchmarked head-to-head against a technician-curated result on a real anti-doping panel.

R² 0.984

vs the curated result

~8 min

for 918 samples

≤ CV

tighter precision

Identical numbers to a human expert — slope 0.998, R² 0.984

1,616 standards + QCs · 90.3% agree within ±25%

Every point is one measurement: automated (MRMpipe, y) vs the curated result (x). They fall on the line of identity. Tap to enlarge ↗

Why it matters

The bottleneck is manual peak review

The problem Turning thousands of chromatograms into trustworthy numbers means reviewing peaks one at a time — slow, subjective, and it doesn’t scale. The answer still depends on who did the picking.

What MRMpipe does Detects, integrates, calibrates and QCs every peak automatically, enforcing light/heavy co-elution at pick time — so a routine lab gets an expert-grade answer in minutes, every time.

Agreement across the range

On target at every concentration

Median bias +2.3% / +3.0% / +0.2% / +0.0%

across the four QC levels — tightens to near-zero at higher concentration

Per-QC-level % difference (automated − curated). The shaded band is ±25%. Tap to enlarge ↗

Calibration & precision

Same calibration, tighter replicate CV

100% of calibration slopes within ±25% · CV 18.1% vs 25.4%

replicate precision is as good or tighter at every level — tighter on 59% of pairs

Median automated/curated slope = 1.001. Tap to enlarge ↗

Lower is better — MRMpipe (dark) ≤ curated (orange) at every level. Tap to enlarge ↗

Takeaway

Expert-grade results, fully automated

Speed. 918 samples end-to-end in ~8 min, fully automated — vs >4 h of manual review.
Reproducibility. Median replicate CV 13.5% vs 14.7%; tighter on 59% of pairs.
Accuracy. Median QC recovery 98.7% vs 97.6% — bias from nominal 1.3% vs 2.4%.

Metric	MRMpipe	Manual (curated)
Analysis time (918 samples)	~8 minutes	>4 hours
Median QC recovery	98.7%	97.6%
Median QC replicate CV	13.5%	14.7%

⤓ Download the full benchmark (PDF)