MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957251338 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10900-y

Use cases, best practice and reporting standards for metabolomics in regulatory toxicology

2019· review· en· W2957251338 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark R. Viant, Timothy M. D. Ebbels, Richard D. Beger, Drew R. Ekman, David J. T. Epps, Hennicke Kamp, P.E.G. Leonards, George Loizou, James I. MacRae, Bennard van Ravenzwaay, Philippe Rocca‐Serra, Reza M. Salek, Tilmann Walk, Ralf J. M. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of JohannesburgJohns Hopkins UniversityBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCorteva AgriscienceUniversity of WarwickUniversité de LausanneEuropean Bioinformatics InstituteUniversité de GenèveMedical Research CouncilFrancis Crick InstituteWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMetabolomicsGood laboratory practiceRegulatory scienceData scienceComputer scienceBest practiceRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering ethicsMedicineBioinformaticsBiologyPolitical scienceEngineeringQuality assurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metabolomics is a widely used technology in academic research, yet its application to regulatory science has been limited. The most commonly cited barrier to its translation is lack of performance and reporting standards. The MEtabolomics standaRds Initiative in Toxicology (MERIT) project brings together international experts from multiple sectors to address this need. Here, we identify the most relevant applications for metabolomics in regulatory toxicology and develop best practice guidelines, performance and reporting standards for acquiring and analysing untargeted metabolomics and targeted metabolite data. We recommend that these guidelines are evaluated and implemented for several regulatory use cases.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations199
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207