ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Handling of problematic ion chromatograms with the Automated Target Screening (ATS) workflow for unsupervised analysis of high-resolution mass spectrometry data.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liquid chromatography (LC) or gas chromatography (GC) coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) is a versatile analytical method for the analysis of thousands of chemical pollutants that can be found in environmental and biological samples. While the tools for handling such complex datasets have improved, there are still no fully automated workflows for targeted screening analysis. Here we present an R-based workflow that is able to cope with challenging data like noisy ion chromatograms, retention time shifts, and multiple peak patterns. The workflow can be applied to batches of HRMS data recorded after GC with electron ionization (GC-EI) and LC coupled to electrospray ionization in both negative and positive mode (LC-ESIneg/LC-ESIpos) to perform peak annotation and quantitation fully unsupervised. We used Orbitrap HRMS data of surface water extracts to compare the Automated Target Screening (ATS) workflow with data evaluations performed with the vendor software TraceFinder and the established semi-automated analysis workflow in the MZmine software. The ATS approach increased the overall evaluation performance of the peak annotation compared to the established MZmine module without the need for any post-hoc corrections. The overall accuracy increased from 0.80 to 0.86 (LC-ESIpos), from 0.77 to 0.83 (LC-ESIneg), and from 0.67 to 0.76 (GC-EI). The mean average percentage errors for quantification of ATS were around 30% compared to the manual quantification with TraceFinder. The ATS workflow enables time-efficient analysis of GC- and LC-HRMS data and accelerates and improves the applicability of target screening in studies with a large number of analytes and sample sizes without the need for manual intervention.
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.