MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156824433 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2005.1615546

Elimination of Redundant Protein Identifications in High Throughput Proteomics

2005· article· en· W2156824433 on OpenAlexaff
Robert E. Kearney, F Blondeau, Peter S. McPherson, A.W. Bell, Florence Servant, Michelle Drapeau, S. de Grandpre, John Bergeron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)ProteomicsComputer scienceTandem mass spectrometryComputational biologyThroughputIdentification (biology)Mass spectrometrySet (abstract data type)ChemistryBiologyChromatographyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tandem mass spectrometry followed by data base search is the preferred method for protein identification in high throughput proteomics. However, standard analysis methods give rise to highly redundant lists of proteins with many proteins identified by the same sets of peptides. In essence, this is a list of all proteins that might be present in the sample. Here we present an algorithm that eliminates redundancy and determines the minimum number of proteins needed to explain the peptides observed. We demonstrate that application of the algorithm results in a significantly smaller set of proteins and greatly reduces the number of "shared" peptides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207