Low-level data

The HR-ICPMS cation analytical results are a robust dataset that is remarkably free of data qualifiers for 32 of the 63 cations analyzed an additional 14 cations have <20% censored data. Further, the low-level data have consistent map distribution patterns that make sense geologically. Described below are patterns for several possible porphyry-related elements. 

These are just three examples of low-level data integration showing the capabilities of this approach. In the above-mentioned articles, previously known metabolite-transcripts were found along novel ones. In most cases, metabolites are known, but such analysis can be even further developed for the biological interpretation of unknown molecules. The major advantage of low-level data fusion is that a priori no knowledge about the studied system is needed, although for method validation known associations are needed. 

After identification of gene-metabolite associations or enrichment analysis, visualization is a second key point. Results from low-level data fusion often yields pairwise correlations, which can be visualized using networks. In the case of high-level data fusion, a combined visualization is used on metabolic pathways (e.g., the well-known pathway maps from KEGG are preferred). We discuss some technical resources for both visualization types. However, much more tools for different kinds of visualization exist and are reviewed elsewhere (29). 

Increasing number of papers using combinations of different Omics approaches are published, whereas transcriptomics and metabolomics are often preferred. Combined analysis of both can be carried in different ways, as shown above. Different software tools have been developed for analysis of each single technology, but solutions for combined analysis are emerging. This is especially true for overrepresentation or enrichment analysis in high-level data fusion. With more powerful computer infrastructure available even low-level data fusion (e.g., correlation analysis) will be conducted. Here computational power will be needed because calculation time increases not linearly with data size but rather quadratic or higher. 

In other cases [166, 167] literature values for (supposedly) fc(w) taken from quantum chemical calculations were used to separate the Ag and Aj contributions. While this is in principle preferred over the first approach, the use of computational data leads to questions concerning their reliability, as low-level data might easily deteriorate the accuracy of the quadrupole moments obtained in this way. In addition, there has been some confusion in the earlier literature concerning the hyperpolarizability correction term / ( >). In the original papers by Buckingham and coworkers [134, 168] this term was called B and was referred to as a quadrupole hyperpolarizability. This was apparently misunderstood and led to the incorrect use of the averaged static dipole-dipole-quadrupole hyperpolarizability correction term instead of in the determination of the quadrupole moment [166, 167]. 

Illustrations of some of these limitations, which are unique for low-level data and therefore meaningful detection limits, may be found in references 21. 12, and 22- Fig. 2 in the first reference Illustrates an extreme, yet not uncommon problem quite visible spectral peaks have failed to be detected by the software. 

Brossman, M. W., Kahn, H King D. Kleopfer, R. McKenna G. Taylor, J. K. Reporting of Low-Level Data for Computerized Data Bases - Chapt. 17 in this volume. 

Note 5. The relative standard deviation [RSD] of based on observed counts is for Poisson data, or about 6% for -E(N)=60. Equivalent precision for based on replication would require about 2fi or 120 degrees of freedom. The same is true for confidence intervals for n, hence, based on counts, vs based on replication. For more detail, Including the use of x bo derive both types (counts, replication) of Cl s see Ref. and the monograph by Cox and Lewis (100). Adequacy of the large count (normal) approximation, and the exact treatment for extreme low-level data (n 10 or less) are covered in Ref. and the references therein. 

Reporting Low-Level Data for Computerized Data Bases... 

Consequently, efforts must continue to establish a universal convention to treat low-level data. Such convention must ... 

Reporting of Low-Level Data for a Specific Computerized Database (Robert Kleopfer)... 

ACS Principles for Environmental Analysis Recommendations for Reporting Low-Level Data. (John Taylor)... 

This relates to historical data, as well. As methodology improves and as attention to quality assurance increases, data once acceptable may become obsolete, and may need to be discarded, regardless of how painful this may be. This is especially true of low-level data. Data repiorted as "less-than some value" may have little quantiative value at some later date even if a number had been reported because of measurement uncertainty. When data are properly weighted by the factor l/S, as is necessary when combining it with other data, the rationale for discarding is clarified. 

Robert Kleopfer discusses a different aspect of reporting of low-level data for conputerlzed data bases than that discussed by Don King or John Taylor. Kleopfer discusses a computerized data system and coding approach designed for a single analyte-Dloxin. 

Certainly, a carefully developed and documented protocol would permit more effective evaluation of the validity and appropriateness of conventions for describing low-level data. 

A joint effort of ACS and ASTH could, at a minimum, recommend the issues to be addressed and a documentation structure for low-level data conventions. Our task force for one would be pleased to provide Inputs ranging from general frustrations to specific recommendations. 

---