Optimization of the Data Treatment Steps of a Non-targeted LC-MS-Based Workflow for the Identification of Trace Chemical Residues in Honey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-targeted screening (e.g., suspected-target) is emerging as an attractive tool to investigate the occurrence of contaminants in food. The sample preparation and instrument analysis steps are known to influence the identification of analytes with non-targeted workflows, especially for complex matrices. However, for methods based on mass spectrometry, the impact of the post-analysis data treatment (e.g., feature extraction) on the capacity to correctly identify a contaminant at trace level is currently not well understood. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of seven post-analysis data treatment parameters on the non-targeted identification of trace contaminants in honey using high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to hybrid quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (HPLC-QTOF-MS). Seven compounds reported as veterinary drugs for honeybees were applied as model compounds. Among the parameters studied, the expansion window for chromatogram extraction and the average scans included in the spectra influenced significantly the identification process results. The optimized data treatment was applied to the non-targeted screening of veterinary drugs, pesticides, and other contaminants in 55 honey samples as a proof of concept. Among the 43 compounds included in a library of honey-related compounds that was used for screening, eight compounds were tentatively identified in at least one honey sample. The tentative identity of two of these compounds (tylosin A and hydroxymethylfurfural) was further confirmed with analytical standards. Graphical Abstract.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".