Model based clustering for tandem mass spectrum quality assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several computational methods have been proposed to assess the quality of tandem mass spectra. These methods range from supervised to unsupervised algorithms, discriminative to generative models. Unsupervised learning algorithms for tandem mass spectra are not probabilistic model based and they don't provide probabilities for spectra quality assessment. In this study, the distribution of high quality spectra and poor quality spectra are modeled by a mixture of Gaussian distributions. The Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm is used to estimate the parameters of the Gaussian mixture model. A spectrum is assigned to the high quality or poor quality cluster according to its posterior probability. Experiments are conducted on two datasets: ISB and TOV. The results show about 57.64% and 66.38% of poor quality spectra can be removed without losing more than 10% of high quality spectra for the two spectral datasets, respectively. This indicates clustering as an exploratory data analysis tool is valuable for the quality assessment of tandem mass spectra without using a pre-labeled training dataset.
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) | 0.001 | 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".