PREPRINT "Comparability of Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Dissolved Organic Matter Across Laboratories"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-targeted liquid-chromatography tandem high-resolution mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is increasingly applied for the structure-resolved chemical analysis of dissolved organic matter (DOM). With new developments in mass spectrometry instrumentation and analysis software, the approach has gained substantial momentum over the last decade. However, achieving high-quality analytical data that is reproducible and comparable across laboratories can be a bottleneck in non-targeted metabolomics and organic matter chemical analysis, especially for data reuse in repository-scale analyses. Understanding the capabilities as well as challenges of comparing LC-MS/MS data from different laboratories is necessary for inferring global trends from public datasets. To illuminate instrumentation factors that drive differences and variability, we used a standardized data analysis pipeline, including classical (CMN) and feature-based molecular networking (FBMN) to analyze data from a ring-trial by 24 laboratories on identical sample sets of algal and DOM extracts that were mixed in predefined concentrations and spiked with standards. Our results showed that data sets from similar mass spectrometer types with unified instrument parameters were qualitatively comparable, resolving the same general trends and shared mass spectral features. Inter-laboratory comparability was best for high intensity features, while low intensity features showed greater detection variability. Our analysis also highlights challenges when comparing data from instruments with different acquisition rates or operated with less standardized methods. Lastly, we provide recommendations for data integration, public data sharing, standardization, and best practices for standardized LC-MS/MS data acquisition, which will be critical for long-term time series and inter-comparability of DOM chemical analyses.
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 | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.009 |
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".