Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38948317›Full record

ReviewAnalytical science advances2024

Challenges and recent advances in quantitative mass spectrometry-based metabolomics.

Nathan Ghafari, Lekha Sleno

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Targeted Metabolomic Methods forJournal of proteome research · 2025
    Article
  19. ThebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Nathan GhafariChemistry Department/CERMO-FC University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) Montreal Canada.
Lekha SlenoChemistry Department/CERMO-FC University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) Montreal Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-8019

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of metabolomics has gained tremendous interest in recent years. Whether the goal is to discover biomarkers related to certain pathologies or to better understand the impact of a drug or contaminant, numerous studies have demonstrated how crucial it is to understand variations in metabolism. Detailed knowledge of metabolic variabilities can lead to more effective treatments, as well as faster or less invasive diagnostics. Exploratory approaches are often employed in metabolomics, using relative quantitation to look at perturbations between groups of samples. Most metabolomics studies have been based on metabolite profiling using relative quantitation, with very few studies using an approach for absolute quantitation. Using accurate quantitation facilitates the comparison between different studies, as well as enabling longitudinal studies. In this review, we discuss the most widely used techniques for quantitative metabolomics using mass spectrometry (MS). Various aspects will be addressed, such as the use of external and/or internal standards, derivatization techniques, in vivo isotopic labelling, or quantitative MS imaging. The principles, as well as the associated limitations and challenges, will be described for each approach.

Indexed as

internal standardsmass spectrometryquantitative metabolomicsstable isotope labelling

Identifiers

PMID38948317
PMCPMC11210748

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.