Is nontargeted data acquisition for target analysis (nDATA) in mass spectrometry a forward‐thinking analytical approach?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Targeted mass spectrometry is extensively used for the quantitative measurement of various molecules present in complex matrices. It is certainly one of the most important analytical duties in a mass spectrometry laboratory. Systematic development of selected‐reaction monitoring (SRM), multiple‐reaction monitoring (MRM) and parallel‐reaction monitoring (PRM) methods for targeted mass spectrometry‐based analysis was performed without considering future opportunities. The advancement of hardware and software technologies has resulted in greater resolution, accuracy, speed and depth. For sure, SRM, MRM or PRM acquisitions can quantify molecules very accurately at trace levels. However, they do not provide datasets allowing future data mining. Obviously, we cannot truly quantify something that we do not know is there. However, using non‐targeted data acquisition for target analysis, we can generate a MS 1 and MS 2 digital libraries of each sample, providing future proof datasets. This is instrumental for data mining following new questions potentially arising in time permitting new and deeper processing and interpretation. This perspective article provides thoughts on why we believe it is time to question the status quo in targeted mass spectrometry.
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 | 0.041 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".