ArticleAnalytical chemistry2023
Inferring the Nominal Molecular Mass of an Analyte from Its Electron Ionization Mass Spectrum.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- SpecTUS: Spectral Translator for Unknown Structures Annotation from EI-MS Spectra.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Characterization of key off-flavor compounds in soybean and their dynamic changes during progressive processing.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- New Library-Based Methods for Nontargeted Compound Identification by GC-EI-MS.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025Article
- PSAnalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- NIST Mass Spectrometry Data Center standard reference libraries and software tools: Application to seized drug analysis.Journal of forensic sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The performance of three algorithms for predicting nominal molecular mass from an analyte's electron ionization mass spectrum is presented. The Peak Interpretation Method (PIM) attempts to quantify the likelihood that a molecular ion peak is contained in the mass spectrum, whereas the Simple Search Hitlist Method (SS-HM) and iterative Hybrid Search Hitlist Method (iHS-HM) leverage results from mass spectral library searching. These predictions can be employed in combination (recommended) or independently. The methods were tested on two sets of query mass spectra searched against libraries that did not contain the reference mass spectra of the same compounds: 19,074 spectra of various organic molecules searched against the NIST17 mass spectral library and 162 spectra of small molecule drugs searched against SWGDRUG version 3.3. Individually, each molecular mass prediction method had computed precisions (the fraction of positive predictions that were correct) of 91, 89, and 74%, respectively. The methods become more valuable when predictions are taken together. When all three predictions were identical, which occurred in 33% of the test cases, the predicted molecular mass was almost always correct (>99%).
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.