↓ Skip to main content

Improved batch correction in untargeted MS-based metabolomics

Overview of attention for article published in Metabolomics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
178 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
338 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Improved batch correction in untargeted MS-based metabolomics
Published in
Metabolomics, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11306-016-1015-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ron Wehrens, Jos. A. Hageman, Fred van Eeuwijk, Rik Kooke, Pádraic J. Flood, Erik Wijnker, Joost J. B. Keurentjes, Arjen Lommen, Henriëtte D. L. M. van Eekelen, Robert D. Hall, Roland Mumm, Ric C. H. de Vos

Abstract

Batch effects in large untargeted metabolomics experiments are almost unavoidable, especially when sensitive detection techniques like mass spectrometry (MS) are employed. In order to obtain peak intensities that are comparable across all batches, corrections need to be performed. Since non-detects, i.e., signals with an intensity too low to be detected with certainty, are common in metabolomics studies, the batch correction methods need to take these into account. This paper aims to compare several batch correction methods, and investigates the effect of different strategies for handling non-detects. Batch correction methods usually consist of regression models, possibly also accounting for trends within batches. To fit these models quality control samples (QCs), injected at regular intervals, can be used. Also study samples can be used, provided that the injection order is properly randomized. Normalization methods, not using information on batch labels or injection order, can correct for batch effects as well. Introducing two easy-to-use quality criteria, we assess the merits of these batch correction strategies using three large LC-MS and GC-MS data sets of samples from Arabidopsis thaliana. The three data sets have very different characteristics, leading to clearly distinct behaviour of the batch correction strategies studied. Explicit inclusion of information on batch and injection order in general leads to very good corrections; when enough QCs are available, also general normalization approaches perform well. Several approaches are shown to be able to handle non-detects-replacing them with very small numbers such as zero seems the worst of the approaches considered. The use of quality control samples for batch correction leads to good results when enough QCs are available. If an experiment is properly set up, batch correction using the study samples usually leads to a similar high-quality correction, but has the advantage that more metabolites are corrected. The strategy for handling non-detects is important: choosing small values like zero can lead to suboptimal batch corrections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 331 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 27%
Researcher 69 20%
Student > Master 50 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 7%
Other 33 10%
Unknown 50 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 62 18%
Chemistry 54 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 5%
Computer Science 12 4%
Other 54 16%
Unknown 63 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2020.
All research outputs
#5,593,532
of 23,332,901 outputs
Outputs from Metabolomics
#282
of 1,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,749
of 301,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Metabolomics
#13
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,332,901 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.