MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560374337 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2016.11.101

Dataset of urinary metabolites measured by 1 H NMR analysis of normal human urine

2016· article· en· W2560374337 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc Cassiède, Sindhu Nair, Meghan Dueck, James Mino, Ryan T. McKay, Pascal Mercier, Bernadette Quémerais, Paige Lacy

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsUrineUrinary systemMetabolomicsReproducibilityNormalization (sociology)ChemistryCreatinineChromatographyProton NMRMedicineBiochemistryInternal medicineStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data in this article are related to the research entitled, “Assessment of 1 H NMR-based metabolomics analysis for normalization of urinary metals against creatinine” (M. Cassiède, S. Nair, M. Dueck, J. Mino, R. McKay, P. Mercier, B. Quémerais, P. Lacy, 2016) [1] . This article describes the analysis of urinary metabolites in normal, healthy individuals by 1 H NMR-based metabolomics. NMR spectra of urine samples typically contain hundreds of peaks that must be carefully screened for reproducibility and detectability. An important requirement in the screening of appropriate urinary metabolites is to ensure that they are reproducibly detected. In our study, we applied the peak profiles of 151 known urinary metabolites to 10 normal human urine samples and found that 50 metabolites were reproducibly measured between 600 and 700 MHz magnets in the same samples. The data set has been made publicly available to enable critical or extended analysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207