ArticleAnalytical chemistry2025
Standard Addition as a Method for Quantitative Mass Spectrometry Imaging.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Quantitative MALDI-MSI Workflow for Lipids with a LC-MS-Based Quality Control Pipeline.ACS measurement science au · 2026Article
- Towards spatial lipid profiling by using mass spectrometry: analytical challenges and applications.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- CellMate─A Deep Learning-Assisted Single-Cell Data Processing Platform.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Assessing the Quantitative Performance of Atmospheric Solids Analysis Probe-Mass Spectrometry.Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In mass spectrometry imaging (MSI), analytes are desorbed and ionized directly from a complex and unique chemical microenvironment in each pixel, which makes their quantification challenging. Matrix effects have been addressed by the use of isotopically labeled internal standards (IS), either included in the solvent or sprayed over the tissue section, for pixel-by-pixel relative quantification. However, in addition to requiring preselection, isotopically labeled IS may be costly or unavailable. Here, we introduce a novel approach for quantification in MSI, based on the standard addition method. We report a workflow for both acquiring and processing quantitative data. Furthermore, we compare the detected concentrations obtained by standard addition to the detected concentrations obtained using both IS quantification and external calibration. Finally, we show the applicability of using molecules extracted from tissue as an easily accessible standard mixture for standard addition quantification in MSI. The possibility of using analytical standards and readily available endogenous analytes as a source of calibration standards makes our standard addition-based quantitative approach cost-effective, accessible, and versatile.
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.