Mass Accuracy Check Using Common Background Peaks for Improving Metabolome Data Quality in Chemical Isotope Labeling LC-MS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical isotope labeling (CIL) LC-MS is a highly sensitive and quantitative method for metabolome analysis. Because of a large number of peaks detectable in a sample and the need of running many samples in a metabolomics project, any significant change in mass measurement accuracy during the whole period of running samples can adversely affect the downstream peak alignment and quantitative analysis. Herein, we report a rapid method to check the mass accuracy of individual spectra in each CIL LC-MS run in order to flag up any run containing spectra with accuracy drift that falls outside the expected error. The flagged run may be re-run or discarded before merging with other runs for peak alignment and analysis. This method is based on the observation that some background signals are commonly detected in almost all spectra collected in CIL LC-MS runs. A mass accuracy check (MAC) software program has been developed to first find the common background mass peaks and then use them as mass references to calculate any mass shifts over the course of multiple sample runs. Using a metabolome dataset of 324 human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples and 35 quality control (QC) samples produced by CIL LC-MS, we show that this accuracy check method can streamline the initial raw data processing for downstream analysis in metabolomics.
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 | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".