MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312197939 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbac553

Comprehensive investigation of pathway enrichment methods for functional interpretation of LC–MS global metabolomics data

2022· article· en· W4312197939 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMetabolomicsAnnotationComputer scienceComputational biologyBenchmark (surveying)MetaboliteRanking (information retrieval)Data miningBiologyBioinformaticsArtificial intelligenceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it