A spectroscopic test suggests that fragment ion structure annotations in MS/MS libraries are frequently incorrect
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-MS2) 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 MS2 spectra as reference. The ability of different in silico algorithms to correctly predict MS2 spectra and thus to retrieve correct molecular structures is a topic of lively debate, for instance in the CASMI contest. Underlying the predicted MS2 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 MSn 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 MS2 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".