Current Practices in LC-MS Untargeted Metabolomics: A Scoping Review on the Use of Pooled Quality Control Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Untargeted metabolomics is an analytical approach with numerous applications serving as an effective metabolic phenotyping platform to characterize small molecules within a biological system. Data quality can be challenging to evaluate and demonstrate in metabolomics experiments. This has driven the use of pooled quality control (QC) samples for monitoring and, if necessary, correcting for analytical variance introduced during sample preparation and data acquisition stages. Described herein is a scoping literature review detailing the use of pooled QC samples in published untargeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based metabolomics studies. A literature query was performed, the list of papers was filtered, and suitable articles were randomly sampled. In total, 109 papers were each reviewed by at least five reviewers, answering predefined questions surrounding the use of pooled quality control samples. The results of the review indicate that use of pooled QC samples has been relatively widely adopted by the metabolomics community and that it is used at a similar frequency across biological taxa and sample types in both small- and large-scale studies. However, while many studies generated and analyzed pooled QC samples, relatively few reported the use of pooled QC samples to improve data quality. This demonstrates a clear opportunity for the field to more frequently utilize pooled QC samples for quality reporting, feature filtering, analytical drift correction, and metabolite annotation. Additionally, our survey approach enabled us to assess the ambiguity in the reporting of the methods used to describe the generation and use of pooled QC samples. This analysis indicates that many details of the QC framework are missing or unclear, limiting the reader's ability to determine which QC steps have been taken. Collectively, these results capture the current state of pooled QC sample usage and highlight existing strengths and deficiencies as they are applied in untargeted LC-MS metabolomics.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".