Recommendations for sample selection, collection and preparation for NMR-based metabolomics studies of blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic profiling of blood metabolites, particularly in plasma and serum, is vital for studying human diseases, human conditions, drug interventions and toxicology. The clinical significance of blood arises from its close ties to all human cells and facile accessibility. However, patient-specific variables such as age, sex, diet, lifestyle and health status, along with pre-analytical conditions (sample handling, storage, etc.), can significantly affect metabolomic measurements in whole blood, plasma, or serum studies. These factors, referred to as confounders, must be mitigated to reveal genuine metabolic changes due to illness or intervention onset. REVIEW OBJECTIVE: This review aims to aid metabolomics researchers in collecting reliable, standardized datasets for NMR-based blood (whole/serum/plasma) metabolomics. The goal is to reduce the impact of confounding factors and enhance inter-laboratory comparability, enabling more meaningful outcomes in metabolomics studies. KEY CONCEPTS: This review outlines the main factors affecting blood metabolite levels and offers practical suggestions for what to measure and expect, how to mitigate confounding factors, how to properly prepare, handle and store blood, plasma and serum biosamples and how to report data in targeted NMR-based metabolomics studies of blood, plasma and serum.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.018 |
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".