Toward automated infrared spectral analysis in community drug checking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The body of knowledge surrounding infrared spectral analysis of drug mixtures continues to grow alongside the physical expansion of drug checking services. Technicians trained in the analysis of spectroscopic data are essential for reasons that go beyond the accuracy of the analytical results. Significant barriers faced by people who use drugs in engaging with drug checking services include the speed and accuracy of the results, and the availability and accessibility of the service. These barriers can be overcome by the automation of interpretations. A random forest model for the detection of two compounds, MDA and fluorofentanyl, was trained and optimized with drug samples acquired at a community drug checking site. This resulted in a 79% true positive and 100% true negative rate for MDA, and 61% true positive and 97% true negative rate for fluorofentanyl. The trained models were applied to selected drug samples to demonstrate a proposed workflow for interpreting and validating model predictions. The detection of MDA was demonstrated on three mixtures: (1) MDMA and MDA, (2) MDA and dimethylsulfone, and (3) fentanyl, etizolam, and benzocaine. The classification of fluorofentanyl was applied to a drug mixture containing fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, 4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine, caffeine, and mannitol. Feature importance was calculated using shapely additive explanations to better explain the model predictions and k-nearest neighbors was used for visual comparison to labelled training data. This is a step toward building appropriate trust in computer-assisted interpretations in order to promote their use in a harm reduction context.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".