Comparison of peak‐picking workflows for untargeted liquid chromatography/high‐resolution mass spectrometry metabolomics data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Data analysis is a key step in mass spectrometry based untargeted metabolomics, starting with the generation of generic peak lists from raw liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) data. Due to the use of various algorithms by different workflows, the results of different peak-picking strategies often differ widely. METHODS: Raw LC/HRMS data from two types of biological samples (bile and urine), as well as a standard mixture of 84 metabolites, were processed with four peak-picking softwares: Peakview®, Markerview™, MetabolitePilot™ and XCMS Online. The overlaps between the results of each peak-generating method were then investigated. To gauge the relevance of peak lists, a database search using the METLIN online database was performed to determine which features had accurate masses matching known metabolites as well as a secondary filtering based on MS/MS spectral matching. RESULTS: In this study, only a small proportion of all peaks (less than 10%) were common to all four software programs. Comparison of database searching results showed peaks found uniquely by one workflow have less chance of being found in the METLIN metabolomics database and are even less likely to be confirmed by MS/MS. CONCLUSIONS: It was shown that the performance of peak-generating workflows has a direct impact on untargeted metabolomics results. As it was demonstrated that the peaks found in more than one peak detection workflow have higher potential to be identified by accurate mass as well as MS/MS spectrum matching, it is suggested to use the overlap of different peak-picking workflows as preliminary peak lists for more rugged statistical analysis in global metabolomics investigations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".