Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27069441›Full record

ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society

A batch correction method for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry data that does not depend on quality control samples.

Martin Rusilowicz, Michael Dickinson, Adrian Charlton, Simon O'Keefe, Julie Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Small molecule biomarker discovery: Proposed workflow for LC-MS-based clinical research projects.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Evaluation and correction of injection order effects in LC-MS/MS based targeted metabolomics.Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. MEK inhibition reprograms CD8Nature immunology · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Martin RusilowiczYork Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, University of York, YO10 5GE, York UK ; Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, YO10 5DD UK.
Michael DickinsonFera Science Ltd, York, YO41 1LZ UK.
Adrian CharltonFera Science Ltd, York, YO41 1LZ UK.
Simon O'KeefeYork Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, University of York, YO10 5GE, York UK ; Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, YO10 5DD UK.
Julie WilsonYork Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, University of York, YO10 5GE, York UK ; Departments of Mathematics and Chemistry, University of York, York, YO10 5DD UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5171-8480

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for reproducible and comparable results is of increasing importance in non-targeted metabolomic studies, especially when differences between experimental groups are small. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry spectra are often acquired batch-wise so that necessary calibrations and cleaning of the instrument can take place. However this may introduce further sources of variation, such as differences in the conditions under which the acquisition of individual batches is performed. Quality control (QC) samples are frequently employed as a means of both judging and correcting this variation. Here we show that the use of QC samples can lead to problems. The non-linearity of the response can result in substantial differences between the recorded intensities of the QCs and experimental samples, making the required adjustment difficult to predict. Furthermore, changes in the response profile between one QC interspersion and the next cannot be accounted for and QC based correction can actually exacerbate the problems by introducing artificial differences. "Background correction" methods utilise all experimental samples to estimate the variation over time rather than relying on the QC samples alone. We compare non-QC correction methods with standard QC correction and demonstrate their success in reducing differences between replicate samples and their potential to highlight differences between experimental groups previously hidden by instrumental variation.

Indexed as

Batch correctionLC–MSMass spectrometryMetabolomicsQC correctionQuality control

Identifiers

PMID27069441
PMCPMC4757603

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.