Abstract
Data normalization is an essential part of a large-scale untargeted mass spectrometry metabolomics analysis. Autoscaling, Pareto scaling, range scaling, and level scaling methods for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry data processing were compared with the most common normalization methods, including quantile normalization, probabilistic quotient normalization, and variance stabilizing normalization. These methods were tested on eight datasets from various clinical studies. The efficiency of the data normalization was assessed by the distance between clusters corresponding to batches and the distance between clusters corresponding to clinical groups in the space of principal components, as well as by the number of features with a pairwise statistically significant difference between the batches and the number of features with a pairwise statistically significant difference between clinical groups. Autoscaling demonstrated the most effective reduction in interbatch variation and can be preferable to probabilistic quotient or quantile normalization in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry data.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
