Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States; Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, United States.
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada.
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019 Nov;109:104373. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104373. Epub 2019 Jul 19.
Although some studies reveal that saliva handling and storage practices may influence salivary testosterone concentrations measured with immunoassays, the effect of these method factors on the validity of testosterone immunoassays remains unknown. The validity of immunoassays can be assessed by comparing hormone concentrations measured with immunoassays to a standard reference method: liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (MS). We previously reported the correspondence between salivary testosterone measured with enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and with MS when there was less variance in (or more control over) method factors related to saliva handling and storage across measurement methods (Welker et al., 2016). In the present study, we expanded the original dataset and compared the correspondence between Salimetrics EIAs and MS when there was greater variance in (or less control over) method factors across EIAs and MS (high method variance), to when there was less variance in these factors (low method variance). If variance in these method factors impacts the validity of testosterone measurement, then the EIA-MS correspondence should be stronger when method variance is low compared to when it is high. Our results contradicted this hypothesis: Salimetrics EIA-MS correspondence was stronger when variance in method factors was high compared to when it was low. The composite average correlation across both method variance comparisons provides an updated estimate of Salimetrics EIA-MS correspondence, but the instability in this correspondence may pose challenges to the reproducibility of psychoneuroendocrinology research. We discuss possible explanations for the surprising pattern of results and provide recommendations for future research.
虽然一些研究表明唾液处理和储存方法可能会影响免疫分析测量的唾液睾酮浓度，但这些方法因素对睾酮免疫分析的有效性的影响尚不清楚。免疫分析的有效性可以通过将免疫分析测量的激素浓度与标准参考方法（液相色谱串联质谱法（MS））进行比较来评估。我们之前报道了当涉及唾液处理和储存的方法因素的变异性较小时（或控制较好时），用酶免疫分析法（EIAs）测量的唾液睾酮与 MS 之间的相关性（Welker 等人，2016 年）。在本研究中，我们扩展了原始数据集，并比较了当 EIAs 和 MS 之间的方法因素的变异性较大（或控制较差时）（高方法变异性）与这些因素的变异性较小时（低方法变异性），Salimetrics EIAs 和 MS 之间的相关性。如果这些方法因素的变异性会影响睾酮测量的有效性，那么当方法变异性较低时，EIA-MS 的相关性应该比方法变异性较高时更强。我们的结果与这一假设相矛盾：当方法因素的变异性较高时，Salimetrics EIA-MS 的相关性比变异性较低时更强。这两种方法变异性比较的综合平均相关性提供了 Salimetrics EIA-MS 相关性的最新估计，但这种相关性的不稳定性可能会对心理神经内分泌学研究的可重复性构成挑战。我们讨论了结果中令人惊讶的模式的可能解释，并为未来的研究提供了建议。
