Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35796784›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022

Approaches for assessing performance of high-resolution mass spectrometry-based non-targeted analysis methods.

Christine M Fisher, Katherine T Peter, Seth R Newton, Andrew J Schaub, Jon R Sobus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Christine M FisherCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, 20740, USA. Christine.odonnell@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5612-5281
Katherine T PeterCenter for Urban Waters, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, 98421, USA. ktpeter@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7379-265X
Seth R NewtonUS Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3388-0107
Andrew J SchaubIntelligent Systems Division, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, 78228, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7770-7045
Jon R SobusUS Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0740-6604

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-targeted analysis (NTA) using high-resolution mass spectrometry has enabled the detection and identification of unknown and unexpected compounds of interest in a wide range of sample matrices. Despite these benefits of NTA methods, standardized procedures do not yet exist for assessing performance, limiting stakeholders' abilities to suitably interpret and utilize NTA results. Herein, we first summarize existing performance assessment metrics for targeted analyses to provide context and clarify terminology that may be shared between targeted and NTA methods (e.g., terms such as accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and selectivity). We then discuss promising approaches for assessing NTA method performance, listing strengths and key caveats for each approach, and highlighting areas in need of further development. To structure the discussion, we define three types of NTA study objectives: sample classification, chemical identification, and chemical quantitation. Qualitative study performance (i.e., focusing on sample classification and/or chemical identification) can be assessed using the traditional confusion matrix, with some challenges and limitations. Quantitative study performance can be assessed using estimation procedures developed for targeted methods with consideration for additional sources of uncontrolled experimental error. This article is intended to stimulate discussion and further efforts to develop and improve procedures for assessing NTA method performance. Ultimately, improved performance assessments will enable accurate communication and effective utilization of NTA results by stakeholders.

Indexed as

Mass SpectrometryChemical identificationChemical quantitationHRMSNTAPerformance assessmentSample classification

Identifiers

PMID35796784
PMCPMC9411239

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.