Harmonization of Rapid Evaporative Ionization Mass Spectrometry Workflows across Four Sites and Testing Using Reference Material and Local Food-Grade Meats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry (REIMS) is a direct tissue metabolic profiling technique used to accurately classify tissues using pre-built mass spectral databases. The reproducibility of the analytical equipment, methodology and tissue classification algorithms has yet to be evaluated over multiple sites, which is an essential step for developing this technique for future clinical applications. In this study, we harmonized REIMS methodology using single-source reference material across four sites with identical equipment: Imperial College London (UK); Waters Research Centre (Hungary); Maastricht University (The Netherlands); and Queen’s University (Canada). We observed that method harmonization resulted in reduced spectral variability across sites. Each site then analyzed four different types of locally-sourced food-grade animal tissue. Tissue recognition models were created at each site using multivariate statistical analysis based on the different metabolic profiles observed in the m/z range of 600–1000, and these models were tested against data obtained at the other sites. Cross-validation by site resulted in 100% correct classification of two reference tissues and 69–100% correct classification for food-grade meat samples. While we were able to successfully minimize between-site variability in REIMS signals, differences in animal tissue from local sources led to significant variability in the accuracy of an individual site’s model. Our results inform future multi-site REIMS studies applied to clinical samples and emphasize the importance of carefully-annotated samples that encompass sufficient population diversity.
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 | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".