Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40515841›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025

Examining the effects of analytical replication on data quality in a non-targeted analysis experiment.

Troy M Ferland, Heather D Whitehead, Timothy J Buckley, Alex Chao, Jeffrey M Minucci, E Tyler Carr, Greg Janesch, Safia Rizwan, Nathaniel Charest, Antony J Williams and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Troy M FerlandUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA. ferland.troy@epa.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0558-5311
Heather D WhiteheadUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1817-604X
Timothy J BuckleyUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5128-4643
Alex ChaoUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7914-3623
Jeffrey M MinucciUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5571-2599
E Tyler CarrUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1352-0336
Greg JaneschUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-1655-9479
Safia RizwanUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5262-7019
Nathaniel CharestUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4252-0365
Antony J WilliamsUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2668-4821
James P McCordUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modelling, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA. mccord.james@epa.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1780-4916
Jon R SobusUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA. sobus.jon@epa.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0740-6604

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-targeted analysis (NTA) methods are integral to environmental monitoring given their ability to expand measurable chemical space beyond that of traditional targeted methods. Such vast quantities of NTA data are generated that exhaustive manual review is generally unfeasible. Computational tools facilitate automated data processing, but cannot always distinguish real signals (i.e., originating from a chemical in a sample) from artifacts. Replicate analysis is recommended to aid data review, but as NTA studies become larger, the cost of analytical replication becomes untenable. A need therefore exists for examination of information penalties associated with reduced replication. To investigate this issue, using an existing NTA dataset, we performed over 70,000 simulations of variable replication designs and calculated false discovery rates (FDRs) and false negative rates (FNRs) for NTA features and occurrences. We used regression models to explore associations between replication percentage and FDR/FNR, and to test whether rates were affected by NTA feature attributes. Inverse relationships were generally observed between replication percentage and FDR/FNR, such that lower replication yielded higher information penalties. Significant increases in FDR/FNR were observed for suspected per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compared to non-PFAS, highlighting the potential for differences in information penalties across feature groups. Specific quantitative information penalties are expected to be unique for each NTA study based on sample type and workflow. The methods presented here can support future pilot-scale investigations that will inform the required level of replication in full-scale studies.

Indexed as

False discovery rateFalse negative rateQuality assuranceQuality controlStudy design

Identifiers

PMID40515841
PMCPMC13436073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.