Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37380744›Full record

ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2023

Critical review on data processing algorithms in non-target screening: challenges and opportunities to improve result comparability.

Gerrit Renner, Max Reuschenbach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

2 authors.

Gerrit RennerInstrumental Analytical Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 5, Essen, D-45141, NRW, Germany. gerrit.renner@uni-due.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3808-5890
Max ReuschenbachInstrumental Analytical Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 5, Essen, D-45141, NRW, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-target screening (NTS) is a powerful environmental and analytical chemistry approach for detecting and identifying unknown compounds in complex samples. High-resolution mass spectrometry has enhanced NTS capabilities but created challenges in data analysis, including data preprocessing, peak detection, and feature extraction. This review provides an in-depth understanding of NTS data processing methods, focusing on centroiding, extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) building, chromatographic peak characterization, alignment, componentization, and prioritization of features. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various algorithms, the influence of user input parameters on the results, and the need for automated parameter optimization. We address uncertainty and data quality issues, emphasizing the importance of incorporating confidence intervals and raw data quality assessment in data processing workflows. Furthermore, we highlight the need for cross-study comparability and propose potential solutions, such as utilizing standardized statistics and open-access data exchange platforms. In conclusion, we offer future perspectives and recommendations for developers and users of NTS data processing algorithms and workflows. By addressing these challenges and capitalizing on the opportunities presented, the NTS community can advance the field, improve the reliability of results, and enhance data comparability across different studies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChallengesData processingNon-target screening

Identifiers

PMID37380744
PMCPMC10328864

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.