Challenges and recent advances in quantitative mass spectrometry‐based metabolomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of metabolomics has gained tremendous interest in recent years. Whether the goal is to discover biomarkers related to certain pathologies or to better understand the impact of a drug or contaminant, numerous studies have demonstrated how crucial it is to understand variations in metabolism. Detailed knowledge of metabolic variabilities can lead to more effective treatments, as well as faster or less invasive diagnostics. Exploratory approaches are often employed in metabolomics, using relative quantitation to look at perturbations between groups of samples. Most metabolomics studies have been based on metabolite profiling using relative quantitation, with very few studies using an approach for absolute quantitation. Using accurate quantitation facilitates the comparison between different studies, as well as enabling longitudinal studies. In this review, we discuss the most widely used techniques for quantitative metabolomics using mass spectrometry (MS). Various aspects will be addressed, such as the use of external and/or internal standards, derivatization techniques, in vivo isotopic labelling, or quantitative MS imaging. The principles, as well as the associated limitations and challenges, will be described for each approach.
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 | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".