Concurrent combined verification: reducing false positives in automated NMR structure verification through the evaluation of multiple challenge control structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated structure verification using (1)H NMR data or a combination of (1)H and heteronuclear single-quantum correlation (HSQC) data is gaining more interest as a routine application for qualitative evaluation of large compound libraries produced by synthetic chemistry. The goal of this automated software method is to identify a manageable subset of compounds and data that require human review. In practice, the automated method will flag structure and data combinations that exhibit some inconsistency (i.e. strange chemical shifts, conflicts in multiplicity, or overestimated and underestimated integration values) and validate those that appear consistent. One drawback of this approach is that no automated system can guarantee that all passing structures are indeed correct structures. The major reason for this is that approaches using only (1)H or even (1)H and HSQC spectra often do not provide sufficient information to properly distinguish between similar structures. Therefore, current implementations of automated structure verification systems allow, in principle, false positive results. Presented in this work is a method that greatly reduces the probability of an automated validation system passing incorrect structures (i.e. false positives). This novel method was applied to automatically validate 127 non-proprietary compounds from several commercial sources. Presented also is the impact of this approach on false positive and false negative results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".