Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates compound identification using a contrastive learning framework in mass spectrometry, suggesting enhanced reliability.
Spectral library matching is the most common method for compound identification in mass spectrometry (MS), but it is limited by the coverage of experimental libraries. In-silico libraries can expand the searchable chemical space, yet their utility is hindered by the experiment-to-prediction gap arising from the discrepancies between experimental and predicted spectra. Here, we propose CSU-EP, a Contrastive spectral unification framework that bridges this gap with a two-stage training strategy. First, it is self-supervisedly pretrained on 1,883,697 predicted electron ionization (EI) mass spectra using masked peak prediction. Second, it is fine-tuned via contrastive learning to unify representations of paired experimental and predicted spectra. Using this fine-tuned encoder, we assemble 2.24 million NEIMS-predicted spectra into a spectral embedding database (CSU-EP-DB). CSU-EP achieves a Recall@1 of 47.10% on the NIST replib benchmark when searching against CSU-EP-DB, outperforming LLM4MS by 7.28% and FastEI by 12.47%. It also demonstrates excellent ability to identify compounds absent from experimental libraries. In a plasma metabolomics application, incorporating a molecular weight filter boosts Recall@5 to 92.86%. To ensure broad accessibility, a user-friendly web server is deployed. By effectively bridging the experiment-to-prediction gap, CSU-EP establishes a new paradigm for reliable, scalable compound identification using in-silico libraries. The source code, models, and CSU-EP web server are accessible at https://github.com/tingxiecsu/CSU-EP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: