NMR Phase Error Correction with New Modeling Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a highly sensitive analytical technique essential for precise molecular identification and quantification. However, accurate results depend on effective pre-processing to correct for various types of errors. Phase error correction, in particular, is crucial for ensuring the reliability of NMR data. Current methods often rely on a single linear model, which may not adequately address all types of phase errors. As a result, this limitation frequently requires manual intervention, making the process both time-consuming and prone to errors. To address these limitations, we propose three modelling approaches for NMR phase error correction: nonlinear shrinkage, multiple models, and a new optimization function called delta absolute net minimization (DANM). Our comparison of seven methods revealed that nonlinear shrinkage outperformed others in both simulated spectra and a diabetes study, followed by multiple models with DANM. Additionally, our spike-in experiments demonstrated that DANM performed quite well in both single and multiple models. Our nonlinear shrinkage approach is a simple yet effective solution. We provide an open-source R package, NMRphasing, available on CRAN (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/NMRphasing/) and on GitHub (https://github.com/ajiangsfu/NMRphasing). Received: 6 August 2024 | Revised: 11 October 2024 | Accepted: 31 October 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 authors declare that they have 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, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. Andrée E. Gravel: Resources, Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Ethan Tse: Writing - review & editing. Sanjoy Kumar Das: Resources, Data curation. James Hanley: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. Robert Nadon: Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, 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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".