Evaluating Software Tools for Lipid Identification from Ion Mobility Spectrometry–Mass Spectrometry Lipidomics Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unambiguous identification of lipids is a critical component of lipidomics studies and greatly impacts the interpretation and significance of analyses as well as the ultimate biological understandings derived from measurements. The level of structural detail that is available for lipid identifications is largely determined by the analytical platform being used. Mass spectrometry (MS) coupled with liquid chromatography (LC) is the predominant combination of analytical techniques used for lipidomics studies, and these methods can provide fairly detailed lipid identification. More recently, ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) has begun to see greater adoption in lipidomics studies thanks to the additional dimension of separation that it provides and the added structural information that can support lipid identification. At present, relatively few software tools are available for IMS-MS lipidomics data analysis, which reflects the still limited adoption of IMS as well as the limited software support. This fact is even more pronounced for isomer identifications, such as the determination of double bond positions or integration with MS-based imaging. In this review, we survey the landscape of software tools that are available for the analysis of IMS-MS-based lipidomics data and we evaluate lipid identifications produced by these tools using open-access data sourced from the peer-reviewed lipidomics literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".