MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030659385 · doi:10.1142/s0219720006001746

PRIMA: PEPTIDE ROBUST IDENTIFICATION FROM MS/MS SPECTRA

2006· article· en· W2030659385 on OpenAlexafffund
Jian Liu, Bin Ma, Ming Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern UniversityMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTandem mass spectrometryMascotComputer scienceIdentification (biology)SoftwareConstruct (python library)Ion trapProteomicsPeptideTandemArtificial intelligenceMass spectrometryData miningChemistryChromatographyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In proteomics, tandem mass spectrometry is the key technology for peptide sequencing. However, partially due to the deficiency of peptide identification software, a large portion of the tandem mass spectra are discarded in almost all proteomics centers because they are not interpretable. The problem is more acute with the lower quality data from low end but more popular devices such as the ion trap instruments. In order to deal with the noisy and low quality data, this paper develops a systematic machine learning approach to construct a robust linear scoring function, whose coefficients are determined by a linear programming. A prototype, PRIMA, was implemented. When tested with large benchmarks of varying qualities, PRIMA consistently has higher accuracy than commonly used software MASCOT, SEQUEST and X! Tandem.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207