Electron ionization mass spectrometry feature peak relationships combined with deep classification model to assist similarity algorithm for fast and accurate identification of compounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) combines chromatography and MS, providing full play to the advantages of high separation efficiency of GC, strong qualitative ability of MS, and high sensitivity of detector. In GC-MS data processing, determining the experimental compounds is one of the most important analytical steps, which is usually realized by one-to-one similarity calculations between the experimental mass spectrum and the standard mass spectrum library. Although the accuracy of the algorithm has been improved in recent years, it is still difficult to distinguish structurally similar mass spectra, especially isomers. At the same time, the library capacity is very large and increasing every year, and the algorithm needs to perform large numbers of calculations with irrelevant compounds in the library to recognize unknown compounds, which leads to a significant reduction in efficiency. METHODS: This work proposed to exclude a large number of irrelevant mass spectra by presearching, perform preliminary similarity calculations using similarity algorithms, and finally improve the accuracy of similarity calculations using deep classification models. The replica library of NIST17 is used as the query data, and the master library is used as the reference database. RESULTS: Compared with the traditional recognition algorithm, the preprocessing algorithm has reduced the time by 4.2 h, and by adding the deep learning models 1 and 2 as the final determination, the recognition accuracy has been improved by 1.9% and 6.5%, respectively, based on the original algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: This method improves the recognition efficiency compared to conventional algorithms and at the same time has better recognition accuracy for structurally similar mass spectra and isomers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".