ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Automated Peak Annotation in Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry via a Physics-Informed Probabilistic Framework.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Peak annotation in Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) is a persistent bottleneck that typically requires the manual assignment of chemical formulas to hundreds of fragment ion peaks per spectrum. This work describes a physics-informed probabilistic framework that automates this task by combining five chemically motivated constraints-Gaussian mass accuracy, element composition priors, isotope pattern matching, nitrogen rule parity, and graded valence bounds-into a multiplicative belief score. We evaluate the framework on 643 ground-truth peaks from 151 compounds spanning both positive and negative ion modes, and we explicitly distinguish two regimes. As a scoring task-when the correct formula is present in the candidate list-the framework attains 52.3% Top-1 and 76.4% Top-3 accuracy, a 4.9-fold improvement over mass-only scoring. In fully automated end-to-end deployment, where candidates are generated de novo, Top-1 accuracy is 26.3%; the limiting factor is candidate generation rather than scoring, as only 46.5% of ground-truth formulas are currently produced by the database and combinatorial generator. Leave-One-Compound-Out Cross-Validation (59 compounds, 525 peaks) yields 51.8% Top-1 accuracy with fixed domain-knowledge weights, confirming generalization stability. Ablation analysis identifies element composition priors as the dominant non-mass constraint (-27.7 percentage points when removed), followed by isotope matching (-10.3 pp) and the nitrogen rule (-5.3 pp). The framework requires no labeled training spectra-relying instead on physically motivated priors and curated fragment databases-provides interpretable per-constraint scores (which represent relative rankings rather than calibrated probabilities), and supports polarity-specific configurations, offering a practical computational foundation for automated ToF-SIMS spectrum interpretation.
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.