Taking control of microplastics data: A comparison of control and blank data correction methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although significant headway has been achieved regarding method harmonisation for the analysis of microplastics, analysis and interpretation of control data has largely been overlooked. There is currently no consensus on the best method to utilise data generated from controls, and consequently many methods are arbitrarily employed. This study identified 6 commonly implemented strategies: a) No correction; b) Subtraction; c) Mean Subtraction; d) Spectral Similarity; e) Limits of detection/ limits of quantification (LOD/LOQ) or f) Statistical analysis, of which many variations are possible. Here, the 6 core methods and 45 variant methods (n = 51) thereof were used to correct a dummy dataset using control data. Most of the methods tested were too inflexible to account for the inherent variation present in microplastic data. Only 7 of the 51 methods tested (six LOD/LOQ methods and one statistical method) showed promise, removing between 96.3 % and 100 % of the contamination data from the dummy set. The remaining 44 methods resulted in deficient corrections for background contamination due to the heterogeneity of microplastics. These methods should be avoided in the future to avoid skewed results, especially in low abundance samples. Overall, LOD/LOQ methods or statistical analysis comparing means are recommended for future use in microplastic studies.
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 | 0.031 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".