A combinatorial approach to the peptide feature matching problem for label-free quantification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Label-free quantification is an important approach to identify biomarkers, as it measures the quantity change of peptides across different biological samples. One of the fundamental steps for label-free quantification is to match the peptide features that are detected in two datasets to each other. Although ad hoc software tools exist for the feature matching, the definition of a combinatorial model for this problem is still not available. RESULTS: A combinatorial model is proposed in this article. Each peptide feature contains a mass value and a retention time value, which are used to calculate a matching weight between a pair of features. The feature matching is to find the maximum-weighted matching between the two sets of features, after applying a to-be-computed time alignment function to all the retention time values of one set of the features. This is similar to the maximum matching problem in a bipartite graph. But we show that the requirement of time alignment makes the problem NP-hard. Practical algorithms are also provided. Experiments on real data show that the algorithm compares favorably with other existing methods. CONTACT: binma@uwaterloo.ca SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.001 | 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".