Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36483216›Full record

ArticleExposome2022

An actionable annotation scoring framework for gas chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry.

Jeremy P Koelmel, Hongyu Xie, Elliott J Price, Elizabeth Z Lin, Katherine E Manz, Paul Stelben, Matthew K Paige, Stefano Papazian, Joseph Okeme, Dean P Jones and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exposome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

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

22 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.

Jeremy P KoelmelDepartment of Environmental Health Science, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Hongyu XieDepartment of Environmental Science, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elliott J PriceRECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlarska 2, Brno, Czech Republic.
Elizabeth Z LinDepartment of Environmental Health Science, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Katherine E ManzSchool of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Paul StelbenDepartment of Environmental Health Science, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Matthew K PaigeDepartment of Environmental Health Science, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Stefano PapazianDepartment of Environmental Science, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Joseph OkemeDepartment of Environmental Health Science, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Dean P JonesSchool of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dinesh BarupalIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, New York, NY, USA.
John A BowdenDepartment of Physiological Sciences, Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Pawel RostkowskiNILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller , Norway.
Kurt D PennellSchool of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Vladimir NikiforovNILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Framsenteret, Tromsø, Norway.
Thanh WangMTM Research Centre, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Xin HuSchool of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Yunjia LaiMailman School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Gary W MillerMailman School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8984-1284
Douglas I WalkerIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, New York, NY, USA.
Jonathan W MartinDepartment of Environmental Science, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Krystal J Godri PollittDepartment of Environmental Health Science, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Yale University · USStockholm University · SEBrown University · USColumbia University · USEmory University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USMasaryk University · CZNILU · NOÖrebro University · SEThe FRAM Centre · NOUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

The Yale Cancer Prevention and Control Training ProgramT32CA250803 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Melinda L Irwin, Xiaomei Ma · 2020 to 2026
$2.3M
Mapping the blood cancer exposome for environmental risk profiles of mature B-cell neoplasmsR01ES032831 · NIEHS · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Douglas Ian Walker · 2022 to 2026
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA250803NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES032831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Omics-based technologies have enabled comprehensive characterization of our exposure to environmental chemicals (chemical exposome) as well as assessment of the corresponding biological responses at the molecular level (eg, metabolome, lipidome, proteome, and genome). By systematically measuring personal exposures and linking these stimuli to biological perturbations, researchers can determine specific chemical exposures of concern, identify mechanisms and biomarkers of toxicity, and design interventions to reduce exposures. However, further advancement of metabolomics and exposomics approaches is limited by a lack of standardization and approaches for assigning confidence to chemical annotations. While a wealth of chemical data is generated by gas chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS), incorporating GC-HRMS data into an annotation framework and communicating confidence in these assignments is challenging. It is essential to be able to compare chemical data for exposomics studies across platforms to build upon prior knowledge and advance the technology. Here, we discuss the major pieces of evidence provided by common GC-HRMS workflows, including retention time and retention index, electron ionization, positive chemical ionization, electron capture negative ionization, and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization spectral matching, molecular ion, accurate mass, isotopic patterns, database occurrence, and occurrence in blanks. We then provide a qualitative framework for incorporating these various lines of evidence for communicating confidence in GC-HRMS data by adapting the Schymanski scoring schema developed for reporting confidence levels by liquid chromatography HRMS (LC-HRMS). Validation of our framework is presented using standards spiked in plasma, and confident annotations in outdoor and indoor air samples, showing a false-positive rate of 12% for suspect screening for chemical identifications assigned as Level 2 (when structurally similar isomers are not considered false positives). This framework is easily adaptable to various workflows and provides a concise means to communicate confidence in annotations. Further validation, refinements, and adoption of this framework will ideally lead to harmonization across the field, helping to improve the quality and interpretability of compound annotations obtained in GC-HRMS.

Indexed as

annotationchemicalsconfidence scaleexposomicsgas chromatography (GC)high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS)

Identifiers

PMID36483216
PMCPMC9719826
OpenAlexW4293051781

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.