International NMR-Based Environmental Metabolomics Intercomparison Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several fundamental requirements must be met so that NMR-based metabolomics and the related technique of metabonomics can be formally adopted into environmental monitoring and chemical risk assessment. Here we report an intercomparison exercise which has evaluated the effectiveness of 1H NMR metabolomics to generate comparable data sets from environmentally derived samples. It focuses on laboratory practice that follows sample collection and metabolite extraction, specifically the final stages of sample preparation, NMR data collection (500, 600, and 800 MHz), data processing, and multivariate analysis. Seven laboratories have participated from the U.S.A., Canada, U.K., and Australia, generating a total of ten data sets. Phase 1 comprised the analysis of synthetic metabolite mixtures, while Phase 2 investigated European flounder (Platichthys flesus) liver extracts from clean and contaminated sites. Overall, the comparability of data sets from the participating laboratories was good. Principal components analyses (PCA) of the individual data sets yielded ten highly similar scores plots for the synthetic mixtures, with a comparable result for the liver extracts. Furthermore, the same metabolic biomarkers that discriminated fish from clean and contaminated sites were discovered by all the laboratories. PCA of the combined data sets showed excellent clustering of the multiple analyses. These results demonstrate that NMR-based metabolomics can generate data that are sufficiently comparable between laboratories to support its continued evaluation for regulatory environmental studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".