Data analysis strategies for the characterization of chemical contaminant mixtures. Fish as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thousands of chemicals are potentially contaminating the environment and food resources, covering a wide spectrum of molecular structures, physico-chemical properties, sources, environmental behavior and toxic profiles. Beyond the description of the individual chemicals, characterizing contaminant mixtures in related matrices has become a major challenge in ecological and human health risk assessments. Continuous analytical developments, in the fields of targeted (TA) and non-targeted analysis (NTA), have resulted in ever larger sets of data on associated chemical profiles. More than ever, the implementation of advanced data analysis strategies is essential to elucidate profiles and extract new knowledge from these large data sets. Specifically focusing on the data analysis step, this review summarizes the recent progress in integrating data analysis tools into TA and NTA workflows to address the challenging characterization of chemical mixtures in environmental and food matrices. As fish matrices are relevant in both aquatic pollution and consumer exposure perspectives, fish was chosen as the main theme to illustrate this review, although the present document is equally relevant to other food and environmental matrices. The key features of TA and NTA data sets were reviewed to illustrate the challenges associated with their analysis. Advanced filtering strategies to mine NTA data sets are presented, with a particular focus on chemical filters and discriminant analysis. Further, the applications of supervised and unsupervised multivariate analysis methods to characterize exposure to chemical mixtures, and their associated challenges, is discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".