Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22373732›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2012

Prospects for a statistical theory of LC/TOFMS data.

Andreas Ipsen, Timothy M D Ebbels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andreas IpsenBiomolecular Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. andreas.ipsen06@imperial.ac.uk
Timothy M D Ebbels

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 080714/Z/06/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The critical importance of employing sound statistical arguments when seeking to draw inferences from inexact measurements is well-established throughout the sciences. Yet fundamental statistical methods such as hypothesis testing can currently be applied to only a small subset of the data analytical problems encountered in LC/MS experiments. The means of inference that are more generally employed are based on a variety of heuristic techniques and a largely qualitative understanding of their behavior. In this article, we attempt to move towards a more formalized approach to the analysis of LC/TOFMS data by establishing some of the core concepts required for a detailed mathematical description of the data. Using arguments that are based on the fundamental workings of the instrument, we derive and validate a probability distribution that approximates that of the empirically obtained data and on the basis of which formal statistical tests can be constructed. Unlike many existing statistical models for MS data, the one presented here aims for rigor rather than generality. Consequently, the model is closely tailored to a particular type of TOF mass spectrometer although the general approach carries over to other instrument designs. Looking ahead, we argue that further improvements in our ability to characterize the data mathematically could enable us to address a wide range of data analytical problems in a statistically rigorous manner.

Indexed as

Chromatography, LiquidMass SpectrometryModels, StatisticalPoisson Distribution

Identifiers

PMID22373732
PMCPMC3323824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.