ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023
Picky with peakpicking: assessing chromatographic peak quality with simple metrics in metabolomics.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- MetScribeR: A Semiautomated Tool for Data Processing of In-House LC-MS Metabolite Reference Libraries.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- RAS mutations and colorectal cancer metabolism: a metabolomic analysis of tissue samples.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Automated Integration and Quality Assessment of Chromatographic Peaks in LC-MS-Based Metabolomics and Lipidomics Using TARDIS.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChromatographic peakpicking continues to represent a significant bottleneck in automated LC-MS workflows. Uncontrolled false discovery rates and the lack of manually-calibrated quality metrics require researchers to visually evaluate individual peaks, requiring large amounts of time and breaking replicability. This problem is exacerbated in noisy environmental datasets and for novel separation methods such as hydrophilic interaction columns in metabolomics, creating a demand for a simple, intuitive, and robust metric of peak quality.
resultsHere, we manually labeled four HILIC oceanographic particulate metabolite datasets to assess the performance of individual peak quality metrics. We used these datasets to construct a predictive model calibrated to the likelihood that visual inspection by an MS expert would include a given mass feature in the downstream analysis. We implemented two novel peak quality metrics, a custom signal-to-noise metric and a test of similarity to a bell curve, both calculated from the raw data in the extracted ion chromatogram, and found that these outperformed existing measurements of peak quality. A simple logistic regression model built on two metrics reduced the fraction of false positives in the analysis from 70-80% down to 1-5% and showed minimal overfitting when applied to novel datasets. We then explored the implications of this quality thresholding on the conclusions obtained by the downstream analysis and found that while only 10% of the variance in the dataset could be explained by depth in the default output from the peakpicker, approximately 40% of the variance was explained when restricted to high-quality peaks alone.
conclusionsWe conclude that the poor performance of peakpicking algorithms significantly reduces the power of both univariate and multivariate statistical analyses to detect environmental differences. We demonstrate that simple models built on intuitive metrics and derived from the raw data are more robust and can outperform more complex models when applied to new data. Finally, we show that in properly curated datasets, depth is a major driver of variability in the marine microbial metabolome and identify several interesting metabolite trends for future investigation.
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.