Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative structure-retention relationship (QSRR) is a technique capable of improving the identification of analytes by predicting their retention time on a liquid chromatography column (LC) and/or their properties. This approach is particularly useful when LC is coupled with a high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) platform. The main aim of the present study was to develop and describe appropriate QSRR models that provide usable predictive capability, allowing false positive identification to be removed during the interpretation of metabolomics data, while additionally increasing confidence of experimental results in doping control area. For this purpose, a dataset consisting of 146 drugs, metabolites and banned compounds from World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) lists, was used. A QSRR study was carried out separately on high quality retention data determined by reversed-phase (RP-LC-HRMS) and hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC-LC-HRMS) systems, employing a single protocol for each system. Multiple linear regression (MLR) was applied to construct the linear QSRR models based on a variety of theoretical molecular descriptors. The regression equations included a set of three descriptors for each model: ALogP, BELe6, R2p and ALogP(2), FDI, BLTA96, were used in the analysis of reversed-phase and HILIC column models, respectively. Statistically significant QSRR models (squared correlation coefficient for model fitting, R(2)=0.95 for RP and R(2)=0.84 for HILIC) indicate a strong correlation between retention time and the molecular descriptors. An evaluation of the best correlation models, performed by validation of each model using three tests (leave-one-out, leave-many-out, external tests), demonstrated the reliability of the models. This paper provides a practical and effective method for analytical chemists working with LC/HRMS platforms to improve predictive confidence of studies that seek to identify small molecules.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".