ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Critical evaluation of the NIST retention index database reliability with specific examples.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The NIST gas chromatographic retention index database is widely used in gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. For many compounds, the NIST database contains many entries that are presumably obtained independently of each other. We showed with specific examples that there are cases in the NIST database where several entries exist for the same compound, and all of them are equally erroneous (an error of more than 100 units). In particular, we demonstrated that all retention index values for such an important compound as imidazole for non-polar stationary phases in the NIST database are erroneous. In addition to imidazole, a similar situation is observed for four more nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compounds. For certainty, measurements were performed under several conditions, using various temperature programs, and using two specimens of columns. The structures were confirmed using nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry. It was shown with specific examples that many values are not reliable: either data were obtained using standard samples of undescribed origin without confirmation (without even using mass spectrometry) or, in some cases, standard samples were not used at all, and the retention index was obtained for a mixture component identified using a mass spectral library search. Some "independent" values are not such but are repeated publications of the same data (secondary sources), or simply several values taken from the same source. In the work, an analysis was carried out and assumptions were made about how several equally incorrect retention index values could appear in the NIST database.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39331169What 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.