MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399865220 · doi:10.47852/bonviewjdsis42022556

Insights into Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Data Preprocessing: A Comprehensive Review

2024· review· en· W4399865220 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear magnetic resonanceNuclear dataComputer sciencePhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and its derivatives play a pivotal role in molecular analysis across research and clinical domains. However, the intricate nature of NMR data preprocessing, which is integral for accurate analysis, is not easily understood despite the availability of numerous software tools. This comprehensive review aims to unravel the complexities of preprocessing algorithms in both the time and frequency domains. It covers essential steps such as direct current offset removal, eddy current correction, shift and linear prediction, weighting, zero filling, domain transformation, phase error correction, baseline correction, solvent filtering, calibration and alignment, reference deconvolution, binning/bucketing, peak picking, peak fitting/deconvolution, compound identification, integration and quantification, normalization, and transformation. The review uses plain language to enhance accessibility and understanding. By demystifying the algorithms behind these preprocessing steps, we seek to help researchers and practitioners in navigating the nuances of NMR data preprocessing, ultimately fostering better understanding and practical application in molecular analysis. Received:1 February 2024| Revised: 20 May 2024| Accepted: 30 May 2024 Conflicts of Interest Aixiang Jiang is an Editorial Board Member for Journal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest to this work. Data Availability Statement Data available on request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Author Contribution Statement Aixiang Jiang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it