ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025
Examining structure-based surrogate selection for quantitative non-targeted analysis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenging the Database: Day-of-Analysis Calibration and UF Modeling for Reliable RRF Use in Medical Device Chemical Characterization.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Examining the effects of analytical replication on data quality in a non-targeted analysis experiment.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative non-targeted analysis (qNTA) is an important tool for characterizing emerging contaminants in environmental, biological, and product-based samples. While traditional non-targeted analysis (NTA) focuses on chemical identification, qNTA additionally produces chemical concentration estimates. These estimates can inform provisional risk-based decisions and prioritize targets for follow-up analysis. Many common qNTA and "semi-quantitative" approaches rely on surrogate chemicals for calibration and model predictions. Despite their importance, surrogates are often chosen based on a combination of intuition and/or availability rather than rational (i.e., structure-based) selection. The lack of rational selection limits the degree to which qNTA can be objectively, mathematically assessed and improved. In this work, we systematically assess the extent to which chemical structure should inform the selection of qNTA surrogates using a dataset from liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) experiments. First, we calculate a chemical space embedding using available LC-HRMS training data (n=385 chemicals) and 2D molecular descriptors deemed important to electrospray ionization efficiency. Then, using data from EPA's Non-Targeted Analysis Collaborative Trial (ENTACT), we calculate the leverage of measured analytes (n=533 chemicals) within the embedded chemical space. Based on leverage calculations, we implement multiple structure-based surrogate selection strategies and compare those to random selection using qNTA metrics for accuracy, uncertainty, and reliability. Finally, we propose and examine the "leveraged averaged representative distance" (LARD) as a means to quantify the coverage of qNTA surrogates within a defined chemical space. Our results show that qNTA models can benefit from rational surrogate selection strategies. They further show that a large enough random surrogate sample can perform as well as a smaller, chemically informed surrogate sample. Researchers are advised to carefully consider these findings when selecting surrogates for future qNTA studies.
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.