ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2012
Prospects for a statistical theory of LC/TOFMS data.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Proteomics Imputation Methods with Improved Criteria.Journal of proteome research · 2023Article
- Orders of magnitude extension of the effective dynamic range of TDC-based TOFMS data through maximum likelihood estimation.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.