Cited by 17Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications

Workflow for Evaluating Normalization Tools for Omics Data Using Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning

Open access
Chua, Aleesa E., Pfeifer, Leah D., Sekera, Emily R., Hummon, Amanda B., Desaire, Heather·2023·Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry

Abstract

To achieve high quality omics results, systematic variability in mass spectrometry (MS) data must be adequately addressed. Effective data normalization is essential for minimizing this variability. The abundance of approaches and the data-dependent nature of normalization have led some researchers to develop open-source academic software for choosing the best approach. While these tools are certainly beneficial to the community, none of them meet all of the needs of all users, particularly users who want to test new strategies that are not available in these products. Herein, we present a simple and straightforward workflow that facilitates the identification of optimal normalization strategies using straightforward evaluation metrics, employing both supervised and unsupervised machine learning. The workflow offers a "DIY" aspect, where the performance of any normalization strategy can be evaluated for any type of MS data. As a demonstration of its utility, we apply this workflow on two distinct datasets, an ESI-MS dataset of extracted lipids from latent fingerprints and a cancer spheroid dataset of metabolites ionized by MALDI-MSI, for which we identified the best-performing normalization strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jasms.3c00295

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chua, A. E., Pfeifer, L. D., Sekera, E. R., Hummon, A. B., & Desaire, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Desaire, Heather
Venue
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
Published
2023-10-28
Volume
34
Issue
12
Pages
2775-2784
ISSN
  • 1044-0305 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-1123
OpenAlex
W4388007331
Cited by
17
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 3
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Division of Chemistry (CHE-1950293)
  • National Institute on Aging (RF1AG072760)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Keywords
omics data, workflow, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, evaluation metrics, MALDI mass spectrometry imaging, tumor spheroids, metabolomics
MeSH terms
Unsupervised Machine Learning, Humans, Neoplasms, Software, Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization, Workflow

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review