ArticleScientific reports2025
Correction of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry long-term instrumental drift using quality control samples over 155 days.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Long-term instrumental data drift is a critical challenge for ensuring process reliability and product stability. In this study, we conducted 20 repeated tests on the smoke of six commercial tobacco products using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) instrument over 155 days. We propose a simple, cost-effective, and reliable peak-area correction approach to address long-term data drift, especially on GC-MS data. Using 20 pooled quality control (QC) samples, we establish correction algorithm data set, and achieved reliable peak correction even for compositions exhibiting large fluctuations. Three algorithms - spline interpolation (SC), support vector regression (SVR), and Random Forest (RF) - were applied to normalise 178 target chemicals in 20 repeated measurements on six samples. Two key innovative approaches were introduced. First, we established a "virtual QC sample" by incorporating chromatographic peaks from all 20 QC results, via retention time and mass spectrum verification. This virtual QC served as the meta reference for analyzing and normalizing the test sample. Second, we took translated batch effects and injection order effects into two numerical indices in the algorithms, minimizing artificial parameterization of experiments. For chemical components found in the test samples but absent in the QC samples, normalisation was achieved using either adjacent chromatography peak for correction or by applying average correction coefficients derived from all QC data. Our results show that Random Forest algorithm provided the most stable and reliable correction model for long-term, highly variable data. Principal component analysis (PCA) and standard deviation analysis confirmed the robustness of the correction procedure. In contrast, models based on SC and SVR algorithms exhibited less stability with SC being the lowest. For data with large variation, SVR tends to over-fit and over-correct. This study shows that for long-term data measurements by GC-MS, periodic QC sample measurements combined with appropriate algorithm for correction can effectively compensate for long-term measurement variability, enabling reliable data tracking and quantitative comparison over extended periods.
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.