biostudies-literatureUnknown28(19)Kim SYEstimating the measurement uncertainty (MU) is becoming increasingly mandatory in analytical toxicology. This study evaluates the uncertainty in the quantitative determination of urinary amphetamine (AP) and 4-hydroxyamphetamine (4HA) using a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method based on the dilute-and-shoot approach. Urine sample dilution, preparation of calibrators, calibration curve, and method repeatability were identified as the sources of uncertainty. To evaluate the MU, the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) approach and the Monte Carlo method (MCM) were compared using the R programming language. The MCM afforded a smaller coverage interval for both AP (94.83, 104.74) and 4HA (10.52, 12.14) than that produced by the GUM (AP (92.06Molecules (Basel, Switzerland)6803https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10574584biostudies-literatureUncertainty Evaluation for the Quantification of Urinary Amphetamine and 4-Hydroxyamphetamine Using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Comparison of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement Approach and the Monte Carlo Method with R.PMC10574584Cheong JCKim SYPaeng KJKim JYHyun JLee JKwon NHShin DWfalseUncertainty Evaluation for the Quantification of Urinary Amphetamine and 4-Hydroxyamphetamine Using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Comparison of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement Approach and the Monte Carlo Method with R.Estimating the measurement uncertainty (MU) is becoming increasingly mandatory in analytical toxicology. This study evaluates the uncertainty in the quantitative determination of urinary amphetamine (AP) and 4-hydroxyamphetamine (4HA) using a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method based on the dilute-and-shoot approach. Urine sample dilution, preparation of calibrators, calibration curve, and method repeatability were identified as the sources of uncertainty. To evaluate the MU, the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) approach and the Monte Carlo method (MCM) were compared using the R programming language. The MCM afforded a smaller coverage interval for both AP (94.83, 104.74) and 4HA (10.52, 12.14) than that produced by the GUM (AP (92.062023-01-01T00:00:00Z2023 Sep2025-04-26T13:55:35.667Z2025-04-06T14:25:23.641ZS-EPMC105745843783664610.3390/molecules28196803