Reducing Quantitative Uncertainty Caused by Data Processing in Untargeted Metabolomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Processing liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based metabolomics data using computational programs often introduces additional quantitative uncertainty, termed computational variation in a previous work. This work develops a computational solution to automatically recognize metabolic features with computational variation in a metabolomics data set. This tool, AVIR (short for "Accurate eValuation of alIgnment and integRation"), is a support vector machine-based machine learning strategy (https://github.com/HuanLab/AVIR). The rationale is that metabolic features with computational variation have a poor correlation between chromatographic peak area and peak height-based quantifications across the samples in a study. AVIR was trained on a set of 696 manually curated metabolic features and achieved an accuracy of 94% in a 10-fold cross-validation. When tested on various external data sets from public metabolomics repositories, AVIR demonstrated an accuracy range of 84%-97%. Finally, tested on a large-scale metabolomics study, AVIR clearly indicated features with computational variation and thus guided us to manually correct them. Our results show that 75.3% of the samples with computational variation had a relative intensity difference of over 20% after correction. This demonstrates the critical role of AVIR in reducing computational variation to improve quantitative certainty in untargeted metabolomics analysis.
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 | 0.021 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".