Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32024143›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2020

Untargeted Metabolomics for Metabolic Diagnostic Screening with Automated Data Interpretation Using a Knowledge-Based Algorithm.

Hanneke A Haijes, Maria van der Ham, Hubertus C M T Prinsen, Melissa H Broeks, Peter M van Hasselt, Monique G M de Sain-van der Velden, Nanda M Verhoeven-Duif, Judith J M Jans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Multi-Omic Approach to Newborn Screening: Opportunities and Challenges.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Hanneke A HaijesSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1435-9914
Maria van der HamSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hubertus C M T PrinsenSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5167-4134
Melissa H BroeksSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter M van HasseltSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Child Health, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Monique G M de Sain-van der VeldenSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nanda M Verhoeven-DuifSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Judith J M JansSection Metabolic Diagnostics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Alexandre Suerman Stipend, University Medical Centre Utrecht NAMetakids 2017-075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Untargeted metabolomics may become a standard approach to address diagnostic requests, but, at present, data interpretation is very labor-intensive. To facilitate its implementation in metabolic diagnostic screening, we developed a method for automated data interpretation that preselects the most likely inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). The input parameters of the knowledge-based algorithm were (1) weight scores assigned to 268 unique metabolites for 119 different IEM based on literature and expert opinion, and (2) metabolite Z-scores and ranks based on direct-infusion high resolution mass spectrometry. The output was a ranked list of differential diagnoses (DD) per sample. The algorithm was first optimized using a training set of 110 dried blood spots (DBS) comprising 23 different IEM and 86 plasma samples comprising 21 different IEM. Further optimization was performed using a set of 96 DBS consisting of 53 different IEM. The diagnostic value was validated in a set of 115 plasma samples, which included 58 different IEM and resulted in the correct diagnosis being included in the DD of 72% of the samples, comprising 44 different IEM. The median length of the DD was 10 IEM, and the correct diagnosis ranked first in 37% of the samples. Here, we demonstrate the accuracy of the diagnostic algorithm in preselecting the most likely IEM, based on the untargeted metabolomics of a single sample. We show, as a proof of principle, that automated data interpretation has the potential to facilitate the implementation of untargeted metabolomics for metabolic diagnostic screening, and we provide suggestions for further optimization of the algorithm to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalKnowledge BasesMetabolomeBiomarkersCase-Control StudiesHumansMass ScreeningMetabolism, Inborn ErrorsTandem Mass SpectrometryBiomarkersautomated data interpretationdiagnosticsdirect-infusion high-resolution mass spectrometryIEMinborn errors of metabolismnext generation metabolic screeninguntargeted metabolomics

Identifiers

PMID32024143
PMCPMC7037085

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.