Combining targeted and nontargeted data analysis for liquid chromatography/high‐resolution mass spectrometric analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing importation of food and the diversity of potential contaminants have necessitated more analytical testing of these foods. Historically, mass spectrometric methods for testing foods were confined to monitoring selected ions (SIM or MRM), achieving sensitivity by focusing on targeted ion signals. A limiting factor in this approach is that any contaminants not included on the target list are not typically identified and retrospective data mining is limited. A potential solution is to utilize high-resolution MS to acquire accurate mass full-scan data. Based on the instrumental resolution, these data can be correlated to the actual mass of a contaminant, which would allow for identification of both target compounds and compounds that are not on a target list (nontargets). The focus of this research was to develop software algorithms to provide rapid and accurate data processing of LC/MS data to identify both targeted and nontargeted analytes. Software from a commercial vendor was developed to process LC/MS data and the results were compared to an alternate, vendor-supplied solution. The commercial software performed well and demonstrated the potential for a fully automated processing solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".