Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38715638›Full record

ReviewAnalytical science advances2022

Spotlight on mass spectrometric non-target screening analysis: Advanced data processing methods recently communicated for extracting, prioritizing and quantifying features.

Susanne Minkus, Stefan Bieber, Thomas Letzel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical science advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

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

3 authors.

Susanne MinkusAFIN-TS GmbH Augsburg Germany.
Stefan BieberAFIN-TS GmbH Augsburg Germany.
Thomas LetzelAFIN-TS GmbH Augsburg Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-target screening of trace organic compounds complements routine monitoring of water bodies. So-called features need to be extracted from the raw data that preferably represent a chemical compound. Relevant features need to be prioritized and further be interpreted, for instance by identifying them. Finally, quantitative data is required to assess the risks of a detected compound. This review presents recent and noteworthy contributions to the processing of non-target screening (NTS) data, prioritization of features as well as (semi-) quantitative methods that do not require analytical standards. The focus lies on environmental water samples measured by liquid chromatography, electrospray ionization and high-resolution mass spectrometry. Examples for fully-integrated data processing workflows are given with options for parameter optimization and choosing between different feature extraction algorithms to increase feature coverage. The regions of interest-multivariate curve resolution method is reviewed which combines a data compression alternative with chemometric feature extraction. Furthermore, prioritization strategies based on a confined chemical space for annotation, guidance by targeted analysis and signal intensity are presented. Exploiting the retention time (RT) as diagnostic evidence for NTS investigations is highlighted by discussing RT indexing and prediction using quantitative structure-retention relationship models. Finally, a seminal technology for quantitative NTS is discussed without the need for analytical standards based on predicting ionization efficiencies.

Indexed as

environmental analysisfeature extractionnon‐target screeningprioritizationsemi‐quantification

Identifiers

PMID38715638
PMCPMC10989605

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.