Benchmarking breath analysis using peppermint approach with gas chromatography ion mobility spectrometer coupled to micro thermal desorber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Peppermint Initiative, established within the International Association of Breath Research, introduced the peppermint protocol, a breath analysis benchmarking effort designed to address the lack of inter-comparability of outcomes across different breath sampling techniques and analytical platforms. Benchmarking with gas chromatography—ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) using peppermint has been previously reported however, coupling micro-thermal desorption (µTD) to GC-IMS has not yet, been benchmarked for breath analysis. To benchmark µTD-GC-IMS for breath analysis using the peppermint protocol. Ten healthy participants (4 males and 6 females, aged 20–73 years), were enrolled to give six breath samples into Nalophan bags via a modified peppermint protocol. Breath sampling after peppermint ingestion occurred over 6 h at t = 60, 120, 200, 280, and 360 min. The breath samples (120 cm3) were pre-concentrated in the µTD before being transferred into the GC-IMS for detection. Data was processed using VOCal, including background subtractions, peak volume measurements, and room air assessment. During peppermint washout, eucalyptol showed the highest change in concentration levels, followed by α-pinene and β-pinene. The reproducibility of the technique for breath analysis was demonstrated by constructing logarithmic washout curves, with the average linearity coefficient of R 2 = 0.99. The time to baseline (benchmark) value for the eucalyptol washout was 1111 min (95% CI: 529–1693 min), obtained by extrapolating the average logarithmic washout curve. The study demonstrated that µTD-GC-IMS is reproducible and suitable technique for breath analysis, with benchmark values for eucalyptol comparable to the gold standard GC-MS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".