Comprehensive investigation of pathway enrichment methods for functional interpretation of LC–MS global metabolomics data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global or untargeted metabolomics is widely used to comprehensively investigate metabolic profiles under various pathophysiological conditions such as inflammations, infections, responses to exposures or interactions with microbial communities. However, biological interpretation of global metabolomics data remains a daunting task. Recent years have seen growing applications of pathway enrichment analysis based on putative annotations of liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS) peaks for functional interpretation of LC-MS-based global metabolomics data. However, due to intricate peak-metabolite and metabolite-pathway relationships, considerable variations are observed among results obtained using different approaches. There is an urgent need to benchmark these approaches to inform the best practices. RESULTS: We have conducted a benchmark study of common peak annotation approaches and pathway enrichment methods in current metabolomics studies. Representative approaches, including three peak annotation methods and four enrichment methods, were selected and benchmarked under different scenarios. Based on the results, we have provided a set of recommendations regarding peak annotation, ranking metrics and feature selection. The overall better performance was obtained for the mummichog approach. We have observed that a ~30% annotation rate is sufficient to achieve high recall (~90% based on mummichog), and using semi-annotated data improves functional interpretation. Based on the current platforms and enrichment methods, we further propose an identifiability index to indicate the possibility of a pathway being reliably identified. Finally, we evaluated all methods using 11 COVID-19 and 8 inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) global metabolomics datasets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".