MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508709614 · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2016.08.001

The future of NMR-based metabolomics

2016· review· en· W2508709614 on OpenAlexafffund
John L. Markley, Rafael Brüschweiler, Arthur S. Edison, Hamid R. Eghbalnia, Robert Powers, Daniel Raftery, David S. Wishart

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Biotechnology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsMetabolomicsNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyIn vivoTracingFluorine-19 NMRMass spectrometryChemistryNuclear magnetic resonanceComputer scienceChromatographyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two leading analytical approaches to metabolomics are mass spectrometry (MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Although currently overshadowed by MS in terms of numbers of compounds resolved, NMR spectroscopy offers advantages both on its own and coupled with MS. NMR data are highly reproducible and quantitative over a wide dynamic range and are unmatched for determining structures of unknowns. NMR is adept at tracing metabolic pathways and fluxes using isotope labels. Moreover, NMR is non-destructive and can be utilized in vivo. NMR results have a proven track record of translating in vitro findings to in vivo clinical applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations858
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in BiotechnologySame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207