A feasibility study of sample re-collection in the analysis of selected volatile compounds in breath samples using GC×GC-TOFMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to assess the feasibility of re-collecting breath samples using the Centri® (Markes International, Bridgend, UK) followed by two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled with time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC×GC-TOFMS) analysis. The work was conducted in two main phases. In the first phase, we evaluated the re-collection performance by analyzing two sets of standards, including a Grob mix primary solution and a standard mixture of 20 selected volatile compounds (VCs) covering different classes of organic species commonly found in breath samples. The intra-day and inter-day precision (reported as relative standard deviation (RSD),%) for the re-collection of the Grob mix primary solution were in the range of 1 % to14 % and 3 % to12 %, respectively. The re-collection accuracy ranged from 78 % to 97 %. The intra-day RSD for the re-collection of the standard mixture of selected VCs was within 20 % for all compounds, except for acetone and nonane. The precision was within 25 % for all compounds, except for nonane, n-hexane, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and decane, which exhibited less than 36 % RSD. The re-collection accuracy was in the range of 67 % to 129 %. In the second phase of the study, the re-collection performance in breath analysis was evaluated via five repetitive splitting and re-collection of six breath samples obtained from healthy adults, realizing a total of 30 breath analyses. Initially, we evaluated the re-collection performance by considering all features obtained from breath analysis and then focused on the 20 VCs commonly found in breath samples. The re-collection accuracy for total breath features ranged from 86 to 103 %, and the RSDs were in the range of 1.0 % to 10.4 %. For the selected VCs, the re-collection accuracy of all compounds, except for undecane and benzene, was in the range of 71 % to 132 %.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".