ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of the current methods for assigning molecular formulas to dissolved organic matter using high resolution mass spectrometry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding DOM composition is essential for investigating the biogeochemical carbon cycle and related elements. However, methods for assigning molecular formulas (MF) in high-resolution mass spectrometry remain poorly defined, which often resulting in the misidentification of DOM components. In this study, we established a metrics evaluation framework for assessing the assignment results of each method based on similarity, accuracy and correctness. We selected six methods and then evaluated them using different settings of elemental limits, filter rules and selection rules. Our findings reveal that Formularity and TRFU are the most suitable methods for MF assignment in DOM. These two methods show high similarity ratios (93-99%) and low Bray-Curtis distances (0.13-0.14), indicating more substantial assignment capability. Their correctness rates (86-87%) and low chemical diversity errors (0.14-0.39) indicate more accurate assignment results. Other methods, TEnvR, ICBM and MFAssignR, with separate filters, show unassigned error rates of up to 47% ± 18%, potentially omitting certain DOM components. At moderate dissolved organic carbon concentrations, TRFU performs better, while Formularity outperforms at both high and low concentrations. This study provides recommendations for selecting analytical methods for DOM, facilitating a deeper understanding of its properties and role in aquatic ecosystems.
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.