ArticleAnalytical chemistry2024
Predicting the Predicted: A Comparison of Machine Learning-Based Collision Cross-Section Prediction Models for Small Molecules.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A machine learning framework for classifying lipids in untargeted metabolomics using mass-to-charge ratios and retention times.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of Measurement Precision on Metabolite Identification Probability in Multidimensional Mass Spectrometry-Based, Reference-Free Metabolomics.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- IMPACT-4CCS: Integrated Modeling and Prediction Using Ab Initio and Trained Potentials for Collision Cross Sections.Journal of computational 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The application of machine learning (ML) to -omics research is growing at an exponential rate owing to the increasing availability of large amounts of data for model training. Specifically, in metabolomics, ML has enabled the prediction of tandem mass spectrometry and retention time data. More recently, due to the advent of ion mobility, new ML models have been introduced for collision cross-section (CCS) prediction, but those have been trained with different and relatively small data sets covering a few thousands of small molecules, which hampers their systematic comparison. Here, we compared four existing ML-based CCS prediction models and their capacity to predict CCS values using the recently introduced METLIN-CCS data set. We also compared them with simple linear models and with ML models that used fingerprints as regressors. We analyzed the role of structural diversity of the data on which the ML models are trained with and explored the practical application of these models for metabolite annotation using CCS values. Results showed a limited capability of the existing models to achieve the necessary accuracy to be adopted for routine metabolomics analysis. We showed that for a particular molecule, this accuracy could only be improved when models were trained with a large number of structurally similar counterparts. Therefore, we suggest that current annotation capabilities will only be significantly altered with models trained with heterogeneous data sets composed of large homogeneous hubs of structurally similar molecules to those being predicted.
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.