A spectroscopic test suggests that fragment ion structure annotations in MS/MS libraries are frequently incorrect
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modern untargeted mass spectrometry (MS) analyses quickly detect and resolve thousands of molecular compounds. Although features are readily annotated with a molecular formula in high-resolution small-molecule MS applications, the large majority of them remains unidentified in terms of their full molecular structure. Collision-induced dissociation tandem mass spectrometry (CID-MS 2 ) provides a diagnostic molecular fingerprint to resolve the molecular structure through a library search. However, for de novo identifications, one must often rely on in silico generated MS 2 spectra as reference. The ability of different in silico algorithms to correctly predict MS 2 spectra and thus to retrieve correct molecular structures is a topic of lively debate, for instance in the CASMI contest. Underlying the predicted MS 2 spectra are the in silico generated product ion structures, which are normally not used in de novo identification, but which can serve to critically assess the fragmentation algorithms. Here we evaluate in silico generated MS n product ion structures by comparison with structures established experimentally by infrared ion spectroscopy (IRIS). For a set of three dozen product ion structures from five precursor molecules, we find that virtually all fragment ion structure annotations in three major in silico MS 2 libraries (HMDB, METLIN, mzCloud) are incorrect and caution the reader against their use for structure annotation of MS/MS ions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 it