Standardizing the experimental conditions for using urine in NMR-based metabolomic studies with a particular focus on diagnostic studies: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic composition of human biofluids can provide important diagnostic and prognostic information. Among the biofluids most commonly analyzed in metabolomic studies, urine appears to be particularly useful. It is abundant, readily available, easily stored and can be collected by simple, noninvasive techniques. Moreover, given its chemical complexity, urine is particularly rich in potential disease biomarkers. This makes it an ideal biofluid for detecting or monitoring disease processes. Among the metabolomic tools available for urine analysis, NMR spectroscopy has proven to be particularly well-suited, because the technique is highly reproducible and requires minimal sample handling. As it permits the identification and quantification of a wide range of compounds, independent of their chemical properties, NMR spectroscopy has been frequently used to detect or discover disease fingerprints and biomarkers in urine. Although protocols for NMR data acquisition and processing have been standardized, no consensus on protocols for urine sample selection, collection, storage and preparation in NMR-based metabolomic studies have been developed. This lack of consensus may be leading to spurious biomarkers being reported and may account for a general lack of reproducibility between laboratories. Here, we review a large number of published studies on NMR-based urine metabolic profiling with the aim of identifying key variables that may affect the results of metabolomics studies. From this survey, we identify a number of issues that require either standardization or careful accounting in experimental design and provide some recommendations for urine collection, sample preparation and data acquisition.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".