Gaining quantitative fidelity from Raman spectra in regimesof large and varying fluorescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Raman spectroscopy offers notable experimental advantages as a probe of complex mixtures, its application in practice often confronts samples that present an overwhelming fluorescence background. Here, we explore the efficacy of two particular Raman spectrometric strategies for quantitative analysis under conditions of high fluorescence interference. Calling upon very large datasets, we compare conventional Raman spectroscopy and Shifted Excitation Raman Difference Spectroscopy (SERDS) in an effort to determine which approach best overcomes obstacles presented by fluorescence under various experimental conditions. SERDS subtracts Raman spectra acquired at slightly different excitation wavelengths, which ideally removes an invariant fluorescence background. However, a question remains as to whether this difference waveform or the original spectrum, including the fluorescence, determines the sample composition with better accuracy. Calling upon stochastic simulations, we have constructed a 12- million spectrum database referring to binary mixtures of benzophenone and alanine in a fluorescent matrix representative of various experimental scenarios. We have found that multivariate regression models for the sample composition drawing upon conventional Raman libraries often achieve comparable or better prediction accuracy than SERDS for most fluorescence scenarios. The visually enhanced SERDS spectra do not necessarily translate to more accurate quantitative results. However, SERDS does outperform conventional Raman in scenarios involving highly variable, uncorrelated fluorescence backgrounds, effectively minimizing those challenging interferences. Both methods significantly benefit from preprocessing techniques such as Asymmetric Least Squares (ALS) and Discrete Wavelet Transforms (DWT), which enhance predictive accuracy by reducing baseline noise. This study emphasizes the importance of selecting the appropriate Raman analysis strategy based on specific fluorescence conditions, challenges assumptions about the superiority of visually distinct SERDS spectra, and provides new insights into leveraging Raman spectroscopy in real-world, fluorescence-rich environments.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".