The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical Assessment of Small Molecule Identification 2016: automated methods
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The fourth round of the Critical Assessment of Small Molecule Identification (CASMI) Contest ( www.casmi-contest.org ) was held in 2016, with two new categories for automated methods. This article covers the 208 challenges in Categories 2 and 3, without and with metadata, from organization, participation, results and post-contest evaluation of CASMI 2016 through to perspectives for future contests and small molecule annotation/identification. RESULTS: The Input Output Kernel Regression (CSI:IOKR) machine learning approach performed best in "Category 2: Best Automatic Structural Identification-In Silico Fragmentation Only", won by Team Brouard with 41% challenge wins. The winner of "Category 3: Best Automatic Structural Identification-Full Information" was Team Kind (MS-FINDER), with 76% challenge wins. The best methods were able to achieve over 30% Top 1 ranks in Category 2, with all methods ranking the correct candidate in the Top 10 in around 50% of challenges. This success rate rose to 70% Top 1 ranks in Category 3, with candidates in the Top 10 in over 80% of the challenges. The machine learning and chemistry-based approaches are shown to perform in complementary ways. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in (semi-)automated fragmentation methods for small molecule identification has been substantial. The achieved high rates of correct candidates in the Top 1 and Top 10, despite large candidate numbers, open up great possibilities for high-throughput annotation of untargeted analysis for "known unknowns". As more high quality training data becomes available, the improvements in machine learning methods will likely continue, but the alternative approaches still provide valuable complementary information. Improved integration of experimental context will also improve identification success further for "real life" annotations. The true "unknown unknowns" remain to be evaluated in future CASMI contests. Graphical abstract .
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project
Mansouri, K., Abdelaziz, A., Rybacka, A., Roncaglioni, A., Tropsha, A., Varnek, A., Zakharov, A., Worth, A., Richard, A. M., Grulke, C. M., et al. (2016) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1510267 · Cited by 375 · cited 1×
“The combination of the Category 2 submissions resulted in even better overall performance than each individual method, indicating the complementarity of the approaches and supporting the potential use of consensus fragmentation results as has been shown earlier for fragmenters [12, 52] and also recently for toxicity m…”
Cited by
Systematic classification of unknown metabolites using high-resolution fragmentation mass spectra
Dührkop, K., Nothias, L.-F., Fleischauer, M., Reher, R., Ludwig, M., Hoffmann, M. A., Petras, D., Gerwick, W. H., Rousu, J., Dorrestein, P. C., et al. (2021) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0740-8 · Cited by 860
Self-citationNontarget Screening with High Resolution Mass Spectrometry in the Environment: Ready to Go?
Hollender, J., Schymanski, E. L., Singer, H. P., & Ferguson, P. L. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b02184 · Cited by 733
Self-citationHigh-confidence structural annotation of metabolites absent from spectral libraries
Hoffmann, M. A., Nothias, L.-F., Ludwig, M., Fleischauer, M., Gentry, E. C., Witting, M., Dorrestein, P. C., Dührkop, K., & Böcker, S. (2022) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-021-01045-9 · Cited by 388
Self-citationMSNovelist: de novo structure generation from mass spectra
Stravs, M. A., Dührkop, K., Böcker, S., & Zamboni, N. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01486-3 · Cited by 226
Self-citationRecent Advances in Targeted and Untargeted Metabolomics by NMR and MS/NMR Methods
Bingol, K. (2018) · High-Throughput · doi:10.3390/ht7020009 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Schymanski, E. L., Ruttkies, C., Krauss, M., Brouard, C., Kind, T., Dührkop, K., Allen, F., Vaniya, A., Verdegem, D., Böcker, S., Rousu, J., Shen, H., Tsugawa, H., Sajed, T., Fiehn, O., Ghesquière, B., & Neumann, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Cheminformatics
- Published
- 2017-03-27
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-22
- ISSN
- 1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2603853601
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Critical Assessment of Small Molecule Identification 2016: automated methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13321-017-0207-1
- The paper
- Schymanski, E. L., Ruttkies, C., Krauss, M., Brouard, C., Kind, T., Dührkop, K., Allen, F., Vaniya, A., Verdegem, D., Böcker, S., Rousu, J., Shen, H., Tsugawa, H., Sajed, T., Fiehn, O., Ghesquière, B., & Neumann, S. (2017). Critical Assessment of Small Molecule Identification 2016: automated methods. Journal of Cheminformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017-0207-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.