Large-Scale Interlaboratory DI-FT-ICR MS Comparability Study Employing Various Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry (UHR-MS) coupled with direct infusion (DI) electrospray ionization offers a fast solution for accurate untargeted profiling. Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometers have been shown to produce a wealth of insights into complex chemical systems because they enable unambiguous molecular formula assignment even if the vast majority of signals is of unknown identity. Interlaboratory comparisons are required to apply this type of instrumentation in quality control (for food industry or pharmaceuticals), large-scale environmental studies, or clinical diagnostics. Extended comparisons employing different FT-ICR MS instruments with qualitative direct infusion analysis are scarce since the majority of detected compounds cannot be quantified. The extent to which observations can be reproduced by different laboratories remains unknown. We set up a preliminary study which encompassed a set of 17 laboratories around the globe, diverse in instrumental characteristics and applications, to analyze the same sets of extracts from commercially available standard human blood plasma and Standard Reference Material (SRM) for blood plasma (SRM1950), which were delivered at different dilutions or spiked with different concentrations of pesticides. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which the outputs of differently tuned FT-ICR mass spectrometers, with different technical specifications, are comparable for setting the frames of a future DI-FT-ICR MS ring trial. We concluded that a cluster of five laboratories, with diverse instrumental characteristics, showed comparable and representative performance across all experiments, setting a reference to be used in a future ring trial on blood plasma.
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 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".