Current trends in quantitative proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was inevitable that as soon as mass spectrometrists were able to tell biologists which proteins were in their samples, the next question would be how much of these proteins were present. This has turned out to be a much more challenging question. In this review, we describe the multiple ways that mass spectrometry has attempted to address this issue, both for relative quantitation and for absolute quantitation of proteins. There is no single method that will work for every problem or for every sample. What we present here is a variety of techniques, with guidelines that we hope will assist the researcher in selecting the most appropriate technique for the particular biological problem that needs to be addressed. We need to emphasize that this is a very active area of proteomics research-new quantitative methods are continuously being introduced and some 'pitfalls' of older methods are just being discovered. However, even though there is no perfect technique--and a better technique may be developed tomorrow--valuable information on biomarkers and pathways can be obtained using these currently available methods.
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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
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".