Quantitative Statistical Analysis of Standard and Human Blood Proteins from Liquid Chromatography, Electrospray Ionization, and Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It will be important to determine if the parent and fragment ion intensity results of liquid chromatography, electrospray ionization and tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS) experiments have been randomly and independently sampled from a normal population for the purpose of statistical analysis by general linear models and ANOVA. The tryptic parent peptide and fragment ion m/z and intensity data in the mascot generic files from LC-ESI-MS/MS of purified standard proteins, and human blood protein fractionated by partition chromatography, were parsed into a Structured Query Language (SQL) database and were matched with protein and peptide sequences provided by the X!TANDEM algorithm. The many parent and/or fragment ion intensity values were log transformed, tested for normality, and analyzed using the generic Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Transformation of both parent and fragment intensity values by logarithmic functions yielded intensity distributions that closely approximate the log-normal distribution. ANOVA models of the transformed parent and fragment intensity values showed significant effects of treatments, proteins, and peptides, as well as parent versus fragment ion types, with a low probability of false positive results. Transformed parent and fragment intensity values were compared over all sample treatments, proteins or peptides by the Tukey-Kramer Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. The approach provided a complete and quantitative statistical analysis of LC-ESI-MS/MS data from human blood.
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 | 0.032 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".