Recommended strategies for spectral processing and post-processing of 1D 1H-NMR data of biofluids with a particular focus on urine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
H NMR spectra from urine can yield information-rich data sets that offer important insights into many biological and biochemical phenomena. However, the quality and utility of these insights can be profoundly affected by how the NMR spectra are processed and interpreted. For instance, if the NMR spectra are incorrectly referenced or inconsistently aligned, the identification of many compounds will be incorrect. If the NMR spectra are mis-phased or if the baseline correction is flawed, the estimated concentrations of many compounds will be systematically biased. Furthermore, because NMR permits the measurement of concentrations spanning up to five orders of magnitude, several problems can arise with data analysis. For instance, signals originating from the most abundant metabolites may prove to be the least biologically relevant while signals arising from the least abundant metabolites may prove to be the most important but hardest to accurately and precisely measure. As a result, a number of data processing techniques such as scaling, transformation and normalization are often required to address these issues. Therefore, proper processing of NMR data is a critical step to correctly extract useful information in any NMR-based metabolomic study. In this review we highlight the significance, advantages and disadvantages of different NMR spectral processing steps that are common to most NMR-based metabolomic studies of urine. These include: chemical shift referencing, phase and baseline correction, spectral alignment, spectral binning, scaling and normalization. We also provide a set of recommendations for best practices regarding spectral and data processing for NMR-based metabolomic studies of biofluids, with a particular focus on urine.
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 | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
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".