Exploiting the kernel trick to correlate fragment ions for peptide identification via tandem mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The correlation among fragment ions in a tandem mass spectrum is crucial in reducing stochastic mismatches for peptide identification by database searching. Until now, an efficient scoring algorithm that considers the correlative information in a tunable and comprehensive manner has been lacking. RESULTS: This paper provides a promising approach to utilizing the correlative information for improving the peptide identification accuracy. The kernel trick, rooted in the statistical learning theory, is exploited to address this issue with low computational effort. The common scoring method, the tandem mass spectral dot product (SDP), is extended to the kernel SDP (KSDP). Experiments on a dataset reported previously demonstrate the effectiveness of the KSDP. The implementation on consecutive fragments shows a decrease of 10% in the error rate compared with the SDP. Our software tool, pFind, using a simple scoring function based on the KSDP, outperforms two SDP-based software tools, SEQUEST and Sonar MS/MS, in terms of identification accuracy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: http://www.jdl.ac.cn/user/yfu/pfind/index.html
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".