ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025
Effect of different pooled qc samples on data quality during an inter-batch experiment in untargeted UHPLC-HRMS analysis on two different MS platforms.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of UPLC-MS/MS-Based Widely Targeted Metabolomics Reveals Metabolic Reprogramming During Post-Harvest Storage ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cultivar to chemotype: characterizing complex botanicals with mass spectrometry metabolomics.Natural product reports · 2026Review
- Metabolomic Discoveries for Traditional Chinese Medicine Efficacy in Alzheimer's Disease.BioMed research international · 2026Review
- Fecal short-chain fatty acids and serum metabolites: the impact of COVID-19 infection on dialysis patients.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quality control (QC) samples are commonly used in metabolomics approaches for three main reasons: (i) the initial conditioning of the column; (ii) the correction of analytical drift especially between batches; and (iii) the evaluation of measurement precision. In practice, there are several ways to prepare and conserve QC samples. The most common in untargeted metabolomics is to pool samples after or before extraction, in order to obtain pooled QC samples accounting, respectively, for analytical variance or for both analytical and sample preparation variances. In this study, focusing on untargeted analysis of tea (Camellia sinensis) leaves, we compared three ways of preparing pooled QC samples (two usual and one unusual QC sample preparations) and their efficiency to improve data quality in terms of inter-batch correction, measurement precision, and VIP candidates selection on datasets obtained using two mass spectrometry (MS) technologies (Orbitrap and time of flight (QToF)). We also investigated the effect of data processing modalities, based on the different QC preparations, on data loss and on the global structure of the datasets. Generally, our results show that usual QC sample preparation leads to comparable datasets quality in terms of precision and dispersion on both MS instruments. They also show that QC preparation is crucial for VIP selection; in fact, up to 54% of biomarkers candidates were specific of the QC preparation type used for data processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39557686What 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.