Recommendations for reporting ion mobility Mass Spectrometry measurements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we present a guide to ion mobility mass spectrometry experiments, which covers both linear and nonlinear methods: what is measured, how the measurements are done, and how to report the results, including the uncertainties of mobility and collision cross section values. The guide aims to clarify some possibly confusing concepts, and the reporting recommendations should help researchers, authors and reviewers to contribute comprehensive reports, so that the ion mobility data can be reused more confidently. Starting from the concept of the definition of the measurand, we emphasize that (i) mobility values ( K 0 ) depend intrinsically on ion structure, the nature of the bath gas, temperature, and E / N ; (ii) ion mobility does not measure molecular surfaces directly, but collision cross section (CCS) values are derived from mobility values using a physical model; (iii) methods relying on calibration are empirical (and thus may provide method‐dependent results) only if the gas nature, temperature or E / N cannot match those of the primary method. Our analysis highlights the urgency of a community effort toward establishing primary standards and reference materials for ion mobility, and provides recommendations to do so. © 2019 The Authors. Mass Spectrometry Reviews Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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 it