Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30830432›Full record

ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2019

RANCM: a new ranking scheme for assigning confidence levels to metabolite assignments in NMR-based metabolomics studies.

William C Joesten, Michael A Kennedy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Statistical considerations and database limitations in NMR-based metabolic profiling studies.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2023
    Article
  4. Problems, principles and progress in computational annotation of NMR metabolomics data.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Software tools, databases and resources in metabolomics: updates from 2018 to 2019.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

William C JoestenDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University, 106 Hughes Laboratories, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA.
Michael A KennedyDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University, 106 Hughes Laboratories, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA. kennedm4@miamioh.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6462-665X
Miami University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Metabolomics Standards Initiative has recommended four categories for metabolite assignments in NMR-based metabolic profiling studies. The "putatively annotated compound" category is most commonly reported by metabolomics investigators. However, there is significant ambiguity in reliability of "putatively annotated compound" assignments, which can range from low confidence made on minimal corroborating data to high confidence made on substantial corroborating data.

objectivesTo introduce a new ranking system, Rank and AssigN Confidence to Metabolites (RANCM), to assign confidence levels to "putatively annotated compound" assignments in NMR-based metabolic profiling studies.

methodsThe ranking system was constructed with three confidence levels ranging from Rank 1 for the lowest confidence assignment level to Rank 3 for the highest confidence assignment level. A decision tree was constructed to guide rank selection for each metabolite assignment.

resultsExamples are provided from experimental data demonstrating how to use the decision tree to make confidence level assignments to "putatively annotated compounds" in each of the three rank levels. A standard Excel sheet template is provided to facilitate decision-making, documentation and submission to data repositories.

conclusionRANCM is intended to reduce the ambiguity in "putatively annotated compound" assignments, to facilitate effective communication of the degree of confidence in "putatively annotated compound" assignments, and to make it easier for non-experts to evaluate the significance and reliability of NMR-based metabonomics studies. The system is straightforward to implement, based on the most common datasets collected in NMR-based metabolic profiling studies, and can be used with equal rigor and significance with any set of NMR datasets.

Indexed as

HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMetabolomicsReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareMetabolomicsMetabonomicsNMRNuclear magnetic resonance

Identifiers

PMID30830432
OpenAlexW2908108983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.