Impact of matched samples on domain harmonization in cross-cohort NMR metabolomics
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Machine learning models trained on metabolomics data frequently show reduced performance when applied to independent cohorts because of domain shifts introduced by differences in analytical platforms, sample handling, storage conditions, and metabolite quantification procedures. Robust approaches for harmonizing metabolomics datasets across cohorts are therefore needed to improve model transferability and reproducibility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of matched samples on domain harmonization and cross-cohort prediction performance in NMR metabolomics data, and to compare multiple harmonization strategies for improving model generalization across independently acquired datasets. METHODS: A machine-learning framework was developed to classify ICD-10 code I50.9 (unspecified heart failure) using plasma NMR metabolomics data from the Estonian Biobank. Models were trained on a source dataset comprising 12,000 samples measured at Nightingale Health and evaluated on an independently measured destination dataset of 295 samples acquired on a different NMR platform. Harmonization approaches included within-domain normalization, Optimal Transport, Bridge mapping, and Empirical Bayes correction. The effect of matched samples was assessed using up to 108 duplicated biospecimens measured in both datasets. Additional validation was performed using independently generated human gestational diabetes and mouse diabetes metabolomics datasets from Metabolomics Workbench. RESULTS: Domain harmonization generally improved cross-cohort prediction compared with unaligned data, particularly when matched samples were available. Predictive performance increased as the number of matched samples used for calibration increased, although gains varied across methods. Nevertheless, simple within-domain normalization consistently provided strong performance and often matched or exceeded more complex alignment approaches. External validation using fully unmatched human and mouse metabolomics datasets demonstrated that harmonization strategies improved classification performance relative to raw data, supporting the broader applicability of the framework. CONCLUSION: Matched samples substantially enhance domain harmonization and improve the transferability of metabolomics prediction models across analytical platforms and cohorts. However, robust normalization remains a strong baseline, and the benefits of more sophisticated alignment methods depend on the availability and representativeness of matched reference samples. These findings provide practical guidance for developing reproducible cross-cohort metabolomics machine-learning models while preserving biologically relevant signals.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Ottas, A., Goldoni, L., Armirotti, A., & Decherchi, S.
- Affiliations
- Italian Institute of Technology (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Ottas, A.
- Armirotti, A.
- Decherchi, S.
- ORCID
- Ottas, A.
- Venue
- Metabolomics
- Published
- 2026-10-17
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 1573-3882 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3890
- PMC
- PMC13675295
- OpenAlex
- W7222832668
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Metabolomics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Eesti Teadusagentuur (PUTJD914)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
- Keywords
- matched samples, NMR metabolomics, data alignment, optimal transport, heart failure classification, plasma metabolomics, gestational diabetes mellitus, model generalization
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Animals, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Diabetes, Gestational, Mice, Metabolomics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review