ArticleMetabolites2022
Comparative Analysis of Binary Similarity Measures for Compound Identification in MassSpectrometry-Based Metabolomics.
Article in Metabolites, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolomic profiles impacted by brief mindfulness intervention with contributions to improved health.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- PyCompound: An Open-Source Python Package for Spectral-Library Matching in Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics.Metabolites · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative analysis of continuous similarity measures for compound identification in mass spectrometry-based metabolomics.Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems : an international journal sponsored by the Chemometrics Society · 2025Article
- Prioritization of novel anti-infective stilbene derivatives by combining metabolomic data organization and a stringent 3R-infection model in a knowledge graph.RSC advances · 2025Article
- The Intersection of Metabolomics and Data Science.Metabolites · 2023Article
- MAW: the reproducible Metabolome Annotation Workflow for untargeted tandem mass spectrometry.Journal of cheminformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Compound identification is a critical step in untargeted metabolomics. Its most important procedure is to calculate the similarity between experimental mass spectra and either predicted mass spectra or mass spectra in a mass spectral library. Unlike the continuous similarity measures, there is no study to assess the performance of binary similarity measures in compound identification, even though the well-known Jaccard similarity measure has been widely used without proper evaluation. The objective of this study is thus to evaluate the performance of binary similarity measures for compound identification in untargeted metabolomics. Fifteen binary similarity measures, including the well-known Jaccard, Dice, Sokal-Sneath, Cosine, and Simpson measures, were selected to assess their performance in compound identification. using both electron ionization (EI) and electrospray ionization (ESI) mass spectra. Our theoretical evaluations show that the accuracy of the compound identification was exactly the same between the Jaccard, Dice, 3W-Jaccard, Sokal-Sneath, and Kulczynski measures, between the Cosine and Hellinger measures, and between the McConnaughey and Driver-Kroeber measures, which were practically confirmed using mass spectra libraries. From the mass spectrum-based evaluation, we observed that the best performing similarity measures were the McConnaughey and Driver-Kroeber measures for EI mass spectra and the Cosine and Hellinger measures for ESI mass spectra. The most robust similarity measure was the Fager-McGowan measure, the second-best performing similarity measure in both EI and ESI mass spectra.
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.