Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38380899›Full record

ReviewAnalytical chemistry2024

Online and Offline Prioritization of Chemicals of Interest in Suspect Screening and Non-targeted Screening with High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry.

Drew Szabo, Travis M Falconer, Christine M Fisher, Ted Heise, Allison L Phillips, Gyorgy Vas, Antony J Williams, Anneli Kruve

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Drew SzaboDepartment of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm 106 91, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0089-9218
Travis M FalconerForensic Chemistry Center, Office of Regulatory Science, Office of Regulatory Affairs, US Food and Drug Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio 45237, United States.
Christine M FisherCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, Maryland 20740, United States.
Ted HeiseMED Institute Inc, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906, United States.
Allison L PhillipsCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon 97333, United States.
Gyorgy VasVasAnalytical, Flemington, New Jersey 08822, United States.
Antony J WilliamsCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2668-4821
Anneli KruveDepartment of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm 106 91, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9725-3351

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) have enabled the detection of thousands of chemicals from a single sample, while computational methods have improved the identification and quantification of these chemicals in the absence of reference standards typically required in targeted analysis. However, to determine the presence of chemicals of interest that may pose an overall impact on ecological and human health, prioritization strategies must be used to effectively and efficiently highlight chemicals for further investigation. Prioritization can be based on a chemical's physicochemical properties, structure, exposure, and toxicity, in addition to its regulatory status. This Perspective aims to provide a framework for the strategies used for chemical prioritization that can be implemented to facilitate high-quality research and communication of results. These strategies are categorized as either "online" or "offline" prioritization techniques. Online prioritization techniques trigger the isolation and fragmentation of ions from the low-energy mass spectra in real time, with user-defined parameters. Offline prioritization techniques, in contrast, highlight chemicals of interest after the data has been acquired; detected features can be filtered and ranked based on the relative abundance or the predicted structure, toxicity, and concentration imputed from the tandem mass spectrum (MS

Indexed as

EnvironmentTandem Mass SpectrometryHumans

Identifiers

PMID38380899
PMCPMC10918621

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.