An adaptive approach to denoising tandem mass spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our recent work on denoising, a linear combination of five features was used to adjust the peak intensities in tandem mass spectra. Although the method showed a promise, the coefficients (weights) of the linear combination were fixed and determined empirically. In this paper, we proposed an adaptive approach for estimating these weights. The proposed approach: (i) calculates the score for each peak in a data set with the previous empirically determined weights, (ii) selects the training data set based on the scores of peaks, (iii) applies the linear discriminant analysis to the training data set and takes the solution of linear discriminant analysis as the new weights, (iv) calculates the score again with the new weights, (v) repeats (ii)-(iv) until the weights have no significant change. After getting the final weights, the proposed approach follows the previous methods. The proposed approach was applied to two tandem mass spectra data sets: ISB (with low resolution) and TOV-Q (with high resolution) to evaluate its performance. The results show that about 66% of peaks (likely noise peaks) can be removed and that the number of peptides identified by MASCOT increases by 14 and 23.4% for ISB and TOV-Q data set, respectively, compared to the previous work.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".