ArticleGigaScience2018
Balancing sufficiency and impact in reporting standards for mass spectrometry imaging experiments.
Article in GigaScience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- MALDI mass spectrometry imaging across spatial scales in toxicology: tissue evidence, cellular heterogeneity, and emerging single-cell opportunities.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- MALDI Matrix: Origins, Innovations, and Frontiers.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- Frontiers in Mass Spectrometry-Based Spatial Metabolomics: Current Applications and Challenges in the Context of Biomedical Research.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2024Article
- Moving translational mass spectrometry imaging towards transparent and reproducible data analyses: a case study of an urothelial cancer cohort analyzed in the Galaxy framework.Clinical proteomics · 2022Article
- Novel technical developments in mass spectrometry imaging in 2020: A mini review.Analytical science advances · 2021Review
- Considerations for MALDI-Based Quantitative Mass Spectrometry Imaging Studies.Journal of proteome research · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility, or a lack thereof, is an increasingly important topic across many research fields. A key aspect of reproducibility is accurate reporting of both experiments and the resulting data. Herein, we propose a reporting guideline for mass spectrometry imaging (MSI). Previous standards have laid out guidelines sufficient to guarantee a certain quality of reporting; however, they set a high bar and as a consequence can be exhaustive and broad, thus limiting uptake.To help address this lack of uptake, we propose a reporting supplement-Minimum Information About a Mass Spectrometry Imaging Experiment (MIAMSIE)-and its abbreviated reporting standard version, MSIcheck. MIAMSIE is intended to improve author-driven reporting. It is intentionally not exhaustive, but is rather designed for extensibility and could therefore eventually become analogous to existing standards that aim to guarantee reporting quality. Conversely, its abbreviated form MSIcheck is intended as a diagnostic tool focused on key aspects in MSI reporting.We discuss how existing standards influenced MIAMSIE/MSIcheck and how these new approaches could positively impact reporting quality, followed by test implementation of both standards to demonstrate their use. For MIAMSIE, we report on author reviews of four articles and a dataset. For MSIcheck, we show a snapshot review of a one-month subset of the MSI literature that indicated issues with data provision and the reporting of both data analysis steps and calibration settings for MS systems. Although our contribution is MSI specific, we believe the underlying approach could be considered as a general strategy for improving scientific reporting.
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.