Statistical and Computational Methods for Comparative Proteomic Profiling Using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combined method of LC-MS/MS is increasingly being used to explore differences in the proteomic composition of complex biological systems. The reliability and utility of such comparative protein expression profiling studies is critically dependent on an accurate and rigorous assessment of quantitative changes in the relative abundance of the myriad of proteins typically present in a biological sample such as blood or tissue. In this review, we provide an overview of key statistical and computational issues relevant to bottom-up shotgun global proteomic analysis, with an emphasis on methods that can be applied to improve the dependability of biological inferences drawn from large proteomic datasets. Focusing on a start-to-finish approach, we address the following topics: 1) low-level data processing steps, such as formation of a data matrix, filtering, and baseline subtraction to minimize noise, 2) mid-level processing steps, such as data normalization, alignment in time, peak detection, peak quantification, peak matching, and error models, to facilitate profile comparisons; and, 3) high-level processing steps such as sample classification and biomarker discovery, and related topics such as significance testing, multiple testing, and choice of feature space. We report on approaches that have recently been developed for these steps, discussing their merits and limitations, and propose areas deserving of further research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".