Introducing ‘identification probability’ for automated and transferable assessment of metabolite identification confidence in metabolomics and related studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Methods for assessing compound identification confidence in metabolomics and related studies have been debated and actively researched for the past two decades. The earliest effort in 2007 focused primarily on mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and resulted in four recommended levels of metabolite identification confidence – the Metabolite Standards Initiative (MSI) Levels. In 2014, the original MSI Levels were expanded to five levels (including two sublevels) to facilitate communication of compound identification confidence in high resolution mass spectrometry studies. Further refinement in identification levels have occurred, for example to accommodate use of ion mobility spectrometry in metabolomics workflows, and alternate approaches to communicate compound identification confidence also have been developed based on identification points schema. However, neither qualitative levels of identification confidence nor quantitative scoring systems address the degree of ambiguity in compound identifications in context of the chemical space being considered, are easily automated, or are transferable between analytical platforms. In this perspective, we propose that the metabolomics and related communities consider identification probability as an approach for automated and transferable assessment of compound identification and ambiguity in metabolomics and related studies. Identification probability is defined simply as 1/N, where N is the number of compounds in a reference library or chemical space that match to an experimentally measured molecule within user-defined measurement precision(s), for example mass measurement or retention time accuracy, etc. We demonstrate the utility of identification probability in an in silico analysis of multi-property reference libraries constructed from the Human Metabolome Database and computational property predictions, provide guidance to the community in transparent implementation of the concept, and invite the community to further evaluate this concept in parallel with their current preferred methods for assessing metabolite identification confidence.
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 | 0.050 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".