OptiMS: An Accessible Program for Automating Mass Spectrometry Parameter Optimization and Configuration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometers have an enormous number of user-changeable parameters that drastically affect the observed mass spectrum. Using optimal parameters can significantly improve mass spectrometric data by increasing signal stability and signal-to-noise ratio, which decreases the limit of detection, thus revealing previously unobservable species. However, ascertaining optimal parameters is time-consuming, tedious, and made further challenging by the fact that parameters can act dependently on each other. Consequently, suboptimal parameters are frequently used during characterization, reducing the quality of results. OptiMS, an open-source, cross-platform program, was developed to simplify, accelerate, and more accurately determine optimal mass spectrometer parameters for a given system. It addresses common difficulties associated with existing software such as slow performance, high costs, and limited functionality. OptiMS efficacy was demonstrated through its application to multiple systems, quickly and successfully optimizing instrument parameters unassisted to maximize a user-defined metric, such as the intensity of a particular analyte. Additionally, among other features, OptiMS allows running of a sequence of predefined parameter configurations, reducing the workload of users wishing to obtain mass spectra under multiple sets of conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.017 |
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".