Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30350614›Full record

ArticleAnalytical chemistry2018

Evaluation of an Artificial Neural Network Retention Index Model for Chemical Structure Identification in Nontargeted Metabolomics.

Milinda A Samaraweera, L Mark Hall, Dennis W Hill, David F Grant

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical chemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The application of artificial neural networks in metabolomics: a historical perspective.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2019
    Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Milinda A SamaraweeraDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences , University of Connecticut , 69 North Eagleville Road , Storrs , Connecticut 06269 , United States.
L Mark HallHall Associates Consulting , 2 Davis Street , Quincy , Massachusetts 02170 , United States.
Dennis W HillDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences , University of Connecticut , 69 North Eagleville Road , Storrs , Connecticut 06269 , United States.
David F GrantDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences , University of Connecticut , 69 North Eagleville Road , Storrs , Connecticut 06269 , United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3616-6689
University of Connecticut · US

Funding

Metabolomics Tools for BiomedicineR01GM087714 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI GRANT, DAVID FRANKLIN · 2010 to 2018
$3.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM087714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS) is a major analytical technique used for nontargeted identification of metabolites in biological fluids. Typically, in LC-ESI-MS/MS based database assisted structure elucidation pipelines, the exact mass of an unknown compound is used to mine a chemical structure database to acquire an initial set of possible candidates. Subsequent matching of the collision induced dissociation (CID) spectrum of the unknown to the CID spectra of candidate structures facilitates identification. However, this approach often fails because of the large numbers of potential candidates (i.e., false positives) for which CID spectra are not available. To overcome this problem, CID fragmentation predication programs have been developed, but these also have limited success if large numbers of isomers with similar CID spectra are present in the candidate set. In this study, we investigated the use of a retention index (RI) predictive model as an orthogonal method to help improve identification rates. The model was used to eliminate candidate structures whose predicted RI values differed significantly from the experimentally determined RI value of the unknown compound. We tested this approach using a set of ninety-one endogenous metabolites and four in silico CID fragmentation algorithms: CFM-ID, CSI:FingerID, Mass Frontier, and MetFrag. Candidate sets obtained from PubChem and the Human Metabolite Database (HMDB) were ranked with and without RI filtering followed by in silico spectral matching. Upon RI filtering, 12 of the ninety-one metabolites were eliminated from their respective candidate sets, i.e., were scored incorrectly as negatives. For the remaining seventy-nine compounds, we show that RI filtering eliminated an average of 58% from PubChem candidate sets. This resulted in an approximately 2-fold improvement in average rankings when using CFM-ID, Mass Frontier, and MetFrag. In addition, RI filtering slightly increased the occurrence of number one rankings for all 4 fragmentation algorithms. However, RI filtering did not significantly improve average rankings when HMDB was used as the candidate database, nor did it significantly improve average rankings when using CSI:FingerID. Overall, we show that the current RI model incorrectly eliminated more true positives (12) than were expected (4-5) on the basis of the filtering method. However, it slightly improved the number of correct first place rankings and improved overall average rankings when using CFM-ID, Mass Frontier, and MetFrag.

Indexed as

Models, ChemicalNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsChromatography, LiquidComputer SimulationDatabases, ChemicalMetabolomicsMolecular StructureSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray Ionization

Identifiers

PMID30350614
PMCPMC8378237
OpenAlexW2896473185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.