Our consumables revenue increased to $16.2 million or 63% compared to third quarter of last year. This speaks to the strength of our installed base as well as the improvements in our manufacturing processes as we were able to catch up with demand. Revenue from our Accelerator Lab was $6.2 million, more than double over the third quarter of 2022. Our Accelerator services continue to be a valuable and differentiated offering and have been especially effective in providing customers an alternative to continue their projects in the current funding environment. Now, let’s move on to gross margin for the quarter. Our GAAP gross profit and margin was $17.8 million and 56.8% in the third quarter of 2023 compared to $10.9 million and 41.1% in the third quarter of 2022.
Non-GAAP gross profit and margin was $15.2 million and 48.6% in the quarter as compared to $9.3 million and 34.9% in the third quarter of last year. Our corporate transformation has enabled us to reduce inventory losses and drive efficiencies in our processes and this is evident in our gross margin performance. Our third quarter GAAP operating expenses were $31.6 million compared to $47.5 million in the third quarter of 2022. Excluding the impact of one-time impairment charges of $20.3 million in the third quarter of 2022, GAAP operating expenses increased 16% and non-GAAP operating expenses were up 13%, primarily due to higher consulting fees and personnel costs. Our net loss declined from $35.1 million in the third quarter of 2022 to $7.8 million in third quarter of 2023 due to improved margins from our redevelopment program, the absence of the impairments from 2022, as well as higher interest and other income.
Moving on to liquidity, we ended the third quarter with $330.4 million in total cash and equivalents, a net usage of $1.9 million during the quarter as compared to cash burn of $17.6 million in the third quarter of 2022. Our efficiency gains have translated to significantly reduced year-over-year cash burn. Turning to guidance now, for the fourth quarter full year of 2023. As Masoud mentioned, we’ve made great progress with our redevelopment efforts and are in the last of the six quarter transformation process. For the fourth quarter, we will be focused on upgrades and readiness of our production lines as we introduce new assays in 2024 and in executing on the final steps of our transformation. With these objectives in mind, we expect our fourth quarter revenue to be between $27 million and $29 million.
This increases our revenue guidance for the year to be in the range of $118 million to $120 million compared to our previous range of $110 million to $116 million. We are also increasing our gross margin expectations for the year and now anticipate GAAP gross margin percent to be in the high 50s and non-GAAP gross margin percent to be approximately 50%. As we implement the upgrades to our production processes, we expect non-GAAP gross margins to be in the mid-40s for the fourth quarter, slightly lower than past quarters to account for potential higher costs from these transitional changes. Lastly, we now expect our cash usage for the full year to be in the range of $22 million to $25 million, an improvement from our prior estimate range of $30 million to $35 million.
We expect higher cash outflow in the fourth quarter due to the timing of certain initiatives and payments. For the year, this reflects a significant improvement in cash burn over 2022. Our increased guidance across all our key metrics reflects the continued strong demand for our Simoa Technology and our execution against our transformation goals. Our balance sheet remains strong and we are well-positioned to support our growth and strategic initiatives. I will now turn it back over to Masoud before we take your questions. Masoud?
Masoud Toloue: Thanks, Vandana. I want to copiously thank the entire Quanterix team for their hard work and focused effort. Dan, our COO and Darren, our CCO, have been relentless, in this pursuit. And as a result, there’s been remarkable progress in building a solid and scaled operations platform for our existing products and developing the engine for new product releases to come. If you can’t tell, we’re super excited about next year. Let’s take some questions now.
Kyle Mikson: Yes. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Congrats on the progress here. Just starting off with the new P-tau217 agreement with Johnson, had a few questions about that. First, Masoud, can you talk about deal economics? I think with Lilly, year and a half ago, that was about $11 million in accelerated revenue for like about a full year. So, curious if there’s a comparison here? And then this agreement, like, was it brought on by any change in the relationship with Lilly and does really remain an important partner for you going forward? And then maybe just one clarification. Will Lilly be using Simoa for its own Alzheimer’s test because the company is working with other like analyzer and assay vendors as well? So, I’m just get the question [Indiscernible]? Thanks.
Masoud Toloue: Yes. Thanks Kyle. Yes. So, the answer to your first question, we haven’t announced any sort of deal economics on the a J&J agreement that we signed. However, I would say that Quanterix expects majority of the economics to come from our LDT and our kit sales and what we’re doing with — in the market and trying to get 217 into a lot of folks’ hands. To your to your second question, I think it was on the broad use of 217. Our view on 217 is that, we want to try to get it into as many hands as possible. We think that we — our collaboration with Lilly continues and it’s a very strong collaboration. They presented some great data at CTAD on the Simoa platform and so we expect that relationship to continue. And then on our LDT, it is using the J&J solution. But we want to make both solutions available to this market. And I think you had a third question. I might have missed it there, Kyle.
Kyle Mikson: Yeah. I mean, so far, so good. The — it was the — is Lilly going — Lilly has its own Alzheimer’s assay, right? Is that going to be based on Simoa or some other analyzer assay vendor?
Masoud Toloue: Yes. So, I think there was some clarity, at the CTAD meeting, there was a strong analytical and early clinical validation up to Simoa platform in 217. And as I view this, there’s a lot of different types of solutions and platforms in the market for Alzheimer’s detection. We’re one of the more sensitive ones around 217 and I expect our efforts in cooperation to continue.
Kyle Mikson: Okay, that was perfect. Thanks for that. And it was good to see the NIAAA guidelines know, I guess, like, the new recommendations recently. I was curious how influential those are to clinicians in terms of going against the grain and kind of ordering with these novel products or like these tests that we’re talking about here? And then how could those guidelines if finalized impact CMS decisions regarding reimbursement as well? Like, is that a question, given the size of tests, it’s still pretty early days?
Masoud Toloue: Yes, we agree with that, Kyle. I think it was nice to see the NIAAA guidelines and criterion. And I think the while it’s not a direct a clinical recommendation. I think it has a big influence and to your point, could affect, further decisions down the road. And I really totally agree with what came up in the guidelines. One, in terms of a blood test to — if it’s going to be a blood test that’s on the same playing field as PET, 217 was a clear answer there and we’ve been working on this, obviously, with our partners, for years. And the data has been pretty strong through the clinical trials. And then two, if you look at the accuracy that’s required, in blood, it was high. And the sensitivity required is high. And so I — to applaud the organization for really picking a great test, and great marker for diagnosis.
