Empirical Factors Affecting the Quality of Non-Negative Matrix Factorization of Mammalian Cell Raman Spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian cells contain various macromolecules that can be investigated non-invasively with Raman spectroscopy. The particular mixture of major macromolecules present in a cell being probed are reflected in the measured Raman spectra. Determining macromolecular identities and estimating their concentrations from these mixture Raman spectra can distinguish cell types and otherwise enable biological research. However, the application of canonical multivariate methods, such as principal component analysis (PCA), to perform spectral unmixing yields mathematical solutions that can be difficult to interpret. Non-negative matrix factorization (NNMF) improves the interpretability of unmixed macromolecular components, but can be difficult to apply because ambiguities produced by overlapping Raman bands permit multiple solutions. Furthermore, theoretically sound methods can be difficult to implement in practice. Here we examined the effects of a number of empirical approaches on the quality of NNMF results. These approaches were evaluated on simulated mammalian cell Raman hyperspectra and the results were used to develop an enhanced procedure for implementing NNMF. We demonstrated the utility of this procedure using a Raman hyperspectral data set measured from human islet cells to recover the spectra of insulin and glucagon. This was compared to the relatively inferior PCA of these data.
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 | 0.013 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".