MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988608316 · doi:10.1109/icbbe.2010.5516290

Statistical Analysis of Mascot Peptide Identification with Active Logistic Regression

2010· article· en· W1988608316 on OpenAlexafffund
Jinhong Shi, Wenjun Lin, Fang‐Xiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsMascotLogistic regressionIdentification (biology)Computer scienceOracleArtificial intelligenceRegressionRegression analysisMachine learningStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We apply active learning and logistic regression to perform statistical analysis of Mascot peptide identification.Uncertainty sampling is used to select examples for labeling, and selected examples are labeled with reference data as the oracle. In each iteration of active learning, the penalized Newton-Raphson method is used to solve the logistic regression model. By testing the method on two datasets with known validity, the results have demonstrated that the proposed method can assign accurate probabilities to Mascot peptide identifications and have a high discrimination power to separate correct and incorrect peptide identifications. By use of active learning, superior classifiers have been achieved with a significantly reduced training dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207