Graph-based machine learning interprets and predicts diagnostic isomer-selective ion–molecule reactions in tandem mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostic ion-molecule reactions employed in tandem mass spectrometry experiments can frequently be used to differentiate between isomeric compounds unlike the popular collision-activated dissociation methodology. Selected neutral reagents, such as 2-methoxypropene (MOP), are introduced into an ion trap mass spectrometer where they react with protonated analytes to yield product ions that are diagnostic for the functional groups present in the analytes. However, the understanding and interpretation of the mass spectra obtained can be challenging and time-consuming. Here, we introduce the first bootstrapped decision tree model trained on 36 known ion-molecule reactions with MOP. It uses the graph-based connectivity of analytes' functional groups as input to predict whether the protonated analyte will undergo a diagnostic reaction with MOP. A Cohen kappa statistic of 0.70 was achieved with a blind test set, suggesting substantial inter-model reliability on limited training data. Prospective diagnostic product predictions were experimentally tested for 13 previously unpublished analytes. We introduce chemical reactivity flowcharts to facilitate chemical interpretation of the decisions made by the machine learning method that will be useful to understand and interpret the mass spectra for chemical reactivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".