An international laboratory comparison of dissolved organic matter composition by high resolution mass spectrometry: Are we getting the same answer?
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
Abstract High‐resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) has become a vital tool for dissolved organic matter (DOM) characterization. The upward trend in HRMS analysis of DOM presents challenges in data comparison and interpretation among laboratories operating instruments with differing performance and user operating conditions. It is therefore essential that the community establishes metric ranges and compositional trends for data comparison with reference samples so that data can be robustly compared among research groups. To this end, four identically prepared DOM samples were each measured by 16 laboratories, using 17 commercially purchased instruments, using positive‐ion and negative‐ion mode electrospray ionization (ESI) HRMS analyses. The instruments identified ~1000 common ions in both negative‐ and positive‐ion modes over a wide range of m / z values and chemical space, as determined by van Krevelen diagrams. Calculated metrics of abundance‐weighted average indices (H/C, O/C, aromaticity, and m / z ) of the commonly detected ions showed that hydrogen saturation and aromaticity were consistent for each reference sample across the instruments, while average mass and oxygenation were more affected by differences in instrument type and settings. In this paper we present 32 metric values for future benchmarking. The metric values were obtained for the four different parameters from four samples in two ionization modes and can be used in future work to evaluate the performance of HRMS instruments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it