A quantitative evaluation of spurious results in the infrared spectroscopic measurement of CO<sub>2</sub>isotope ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possible generation of spurious results, arising from the application of infrared spectroscopic techniques to the measurement of carbon isotope ratios in breath, due to coincident absorption bands has been re-examined. An earlier investigation, which approached the problem qualitatively, fulfilled its aspirations in providing an unambiguous assurance that 13C16O2/12C16O2 ratios can be confidently measured for isotopic breath tests using instruments based on infrared absorption. Although this conclusion still stands, subsequent quantitative investigation has revealed an important exception that necessitates a strict adherence to sample collection protocol. The results show that concentrations and decay rates of the coincident breath trace compounds acetonitrile and carbon monoxide, found in the breath sample of a heavy smoker, can produce spurious results. Hence, findings from this investigation justify the concern that breath trace compounds present a risk to the accurate measurement of carbon isotope ratios in breath when using broadband, non-dispersive, ground state absorption infrared spectroscopy. It provides recommendations on the length of smoking abstention required to avoid generation of spurious results and also reaffirms, through quantitative argument, the validity of using infrared absorption spectroscopy to measure CO2 isotope ratios in breath.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".