Fecal 1H-NMR Metabolomics: A Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for NMR and Novel in Silico Baseline Correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of enteric microbiota function indirectly through the fecal metabolome has the potential to be an informative diagnostic tool. However, metabolomic analysis of feces is hampered by high concentrations of macromolecules such as proteins, fats, and fiber in samples. Three methods—ultrafiltration (UF), Bligh–Dyer (BD), and no extraction (samples added directly to buffer, vortexed, and centrifuged)—were tested on multiple rat (n = 10) and chicken (n = 8) fecal samples to ascertain whether the methods worked equally well across species and individuals. An in silico baseline correction method was evaluated to determine if an algorithm could produce spectra similar to those obtained via UF. For both rat and chicken feces, UF removed all macromolecules and produced no baseline distortion among samples. By contrast, the BD and no extraction methods did not remove all the macromolecules and produced baseline distortions. The application of in silico baseline correction produced spectra comparable to UF spectra. In the case of no extraction, more intense peaks were produced. This suggests that baseline correction may be a cost-effective method for metabolomic analyses of fecal samples and an alternative to UF. UF was the most versatile and efficient extraction method; however, BD and no extraction followed by baseline correction can produce comparable results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".