Defining and using microbial spectral databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work shows how fingerprints of mass spectral patterns from microbial isolates are affected by variations in instrumental condition, by sample environment, and by sample handling factors. It describes a novel method by which pattern distortions can be mathematically corrected for variations in factors not amenable to experimental control. One uncontrollable variable is "between-batch" differences in culture media. Another, relevant for determination of noncultured extracts, is differences between the cells' environmental experience (e.g., starved environmental extracts versus cultured standards). The method suggests that, after a single growth cycle on a solid medium (perhaps, a selective one), pyrolysis MS spectra of microbial isolates can be algorithmically compensated and an unknown isolate identified using a spectral database defined by culture on a different (perhaps, nonselective) medium. This reduces identification time to as few as 24 h from sample collection. The concept also proposes a possible way to compensate certain noncultured, nonisolated samples (e.g., cells concentrated from urine or impacted from aerosol or semi-selectively extracted by immunoaffinity methods from heavily contaminated matrices) for identification within half an hour. Using the method, microbial mass spectra from different labs can be assembled into coherent databases similar to those routinely used to identify pure compounds. This type of data treatment is applicable for rapid detection in biowarfare and bioterror events as well as in forensic, research, and clinical laboratory contexts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".