Molecular Structure and Mass Spectral Data Quality–Driven Processing of High‐Resolution Mass Spectrometry for Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: LC-MS-based quantification is traditionally performed using selected or multiple reaction monitoring (SRM/MRM) acquisition functions on triple quadrupole (QQQ) instruments resulting in both high sensitivity and selectivity. This workflow requires a previously identified reaction or transition from a precursor ion to a fragment ion to be monitored to obtain the needed selectivity for the compound of interest. High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) has long sought to be a viable alternative for quantitatipve workflows but has been unable to broadly compete, mainly due to the lack of suitable data processing software. METHODS: The approach we developed agnostically and automatically identifies all ions related to the compound being analyzed in both the MS and MSMS data, acquired with data-dependent or data-independent methods. The algorithm automatically selects optimal parameters (ion extraction window, ions to sum, etc.) to provide the best overall method to meet the acceptance criteria defined by the user (accuracy/precision). RESULTS: The results obtained are directly compared to QQQ data collected from the same set of samples and show that the automated HRMS approach is as good as and, in some cases, better than the traditional QQQ approach in terms of selectivity, sensitivity, and dynamic range. CONCLUSIONS: This new methodology enables the use of generic methods for data collection for quantitative analysis using high-resolution mass spectrometry. With this approach, data collection is faster, and the processing algorithm provides quality equal to or better than the current QQQ methodology. This enables an overall reduction in cycle time and improved assay performance versus current HRMS-based quantitative analysis as well as traditional QQQ workflows.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".