ArticleAnalytical chemistry2026
Implementing Annotation Confidence Scoring in Untargeted Mass Spectrometry Workflows for Small Molecule Analysis.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rhizosphere microbiomes in drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive bermudagrass genotypes: root exudate association.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Untargeted small molecule analysis by high-resolution mass spectrometry is integral to environmental and biological research, enabling comprehensive characterization of complex samples. However, data interpretation and reporting remain challenging due to the complexity and high dimensionality of molecular features in untargeted data sets. Current data analysis platforms provide integrated tools for processing and annotation yet lack a standardized framework for assigning and reporting annotation confidence. Communicating varying levels of confidence in untargeted data sets continues to pose challenges without an automated ranking system. To address this, a custom scripting node was developed that assigns annotation confidence levels based on the widely adopted Schymanski et al. scoring scheme. While implemented here for metabolomics, the scoring approach is broadly applicable to other untargeted small molecule workflows. The script can be incorporated into a commercial data analysis software package and functions as a standalone postprocessing node, expanding the original five-level system with four new sublevels (levels 3a/3b and 4a/4b) to improve specificity and distinguish cases that fall between established categories. Annotation confidence is assessed using available information from all compound identification workflow nodes (e.g., Predicted Composition, mzVault, mzCloud, ChemSpider), and the consensus scoring algorithm is used to evaluate agreement among search nodes for greater accuracy. Validation using NIST SRM 1950 plasma samples demonstrated 100% scoring accuracy in negative mode and >99.5% in positive mode across both RPLC and HILIC separations. This tool enhances data reporting, improves transparency, and promotes consistency across studies, facilitating standardization and comparability of untargeted metabolomics results.
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.