Commentary on “Goodacre R, Timmins ÉM, Rooney PJ, Rowland JJ, Kell DB: Rapid identification of <i>Streptococcus</i> and <i>Enterococcus</i> species using diffuse reflectance-absorbance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and artificial neural networks. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996; 140:233-239”, the most cited paper in the Journal for that year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffuse reflectance-absorbance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) was used to analyse 19 hospital isolates which had been identified by conventional means to one Enterococcus faecalis, E. faecium, Streptococcus bovis, S. mitis, S. pneumoniae, or S. pyogenes. Principal components analysis of the FT-IR spectra showed that this 'unsupervised' learning method failed to form six separable clusters (one of each species) and thus could not be used to identify these bacteria base on their FT-IR spectra. By contrast, artificial neural networks (ANNs) could be trained by 'supervised' learning (using the back-propagation algorithm) with the principal components scores of derivatised spectra to recognise the strains from their FT-IR spectra. These results demonstrate that the combination of FT-IR and ANNs provides a rapid, novel and accurate bacterial identification technique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
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".