Nontargeted Screening Using Gas Chromatography–Atmospheric Pressure Ionization Mass Spectrometry: Recent Trends and Emerging Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gas chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) is a powerful nontargeted screening technique that promises to accelerate the identification of environmental pollutants. Currently, most GC-HRMS instruments are equipped with electron ionization (EI), but atmospheric pressure ionization (API) ion sources have attracted renewed interest because: (i) collisional cooling at atmospheric pressure minimizes fragmentation, resulting in an increased yield of molecular ions for elemental composition determination and improved detection limits; (ii) a wide range of sophisticated tandem (ion mobility) mass spectrometers can be easily adapted for operation with GC-API; and (iii) the conditions of an atmospheric pressure ion source can promote structure diagnostic ion-molecule reactions that are otherwise difficult to perform using conventional GC-MS instrumentation. This literature review addresses the merits of GC-API for nontargeted screening while summarizing recent applications using various GC-API techniques. One perceived drawback of GC-API is the paucity of spectral libraries that can be used to guide structure elucidation. Herein, novel data acquisition, deconvolution and spectral prediction tools will be reviewed. With continued development, it is anticipated that API may eventually supplant EI as the de facto GC-MS ion source used to identify unknowns.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".