The evolution of biomedical vibrational spectroscopy: A personal perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When my colleague Parvez Haris asked me to write a historical review on the evolution of biomedical vibrational spectroscopy I consented, but now I need to clarify what this review is about and what it is not. It is my personal belief that biomedical vibrational spectroscopy has yet to reach its full potential and therefore I will not restrict myself to recounting its past history but will look ahead to its future and where it may still be evolving. Accordingly, my review will comprise two parts. As yours truly has now joined the league of octogenarians, in the first part I plan to share with the readers my personal recollections of the very early days of vibrational bio-spectroscopy which I was privileged to witness and be part of. In the second part I intend to peer into the crystal ball and speculate on new applications in the medical sciences, envisioning vibrational spectroscopy as a tool for the exploration of the human mind to probe psychosomatic diseases and emotional disorders.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it