A Bayesian approach to peptide identification using Accurate Mass and Time tags from LC-FTICR-MS proteomics experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In high-throughput proteomics, one promising approach presently being explored is the Accurate Mass and Time (AMT) tag approach, in which reversed-phase liquid chromatography coupled to high accuracy mass spectrometry provide measurements of both the masses and chromatographic retention times of tryptic peptides in complex mixtures. These measurements are matched to the mass and predicted retention times of peptides in library. There are two varieties of peptides in the library: peptides whose retention time predictions are derived from previous peptide identifications and therefore are of high precision, and peptides whose retention time predictions are derived from a sequence-based model and therefore have lower precision. We present a Bayesian statistical model that provides probability estimates for the correctness of each match by separately modeling the data distributions of correct matches and incorrect matches. For matches to peptides with high-precision retention time predictions, the model distinguishes correct matches from incorrect matches with high confidence. For matches to peptides having low-precision retention time predictions, match probabilities do not approach certainty; however, even moderate probability matches may provide biologically interesting findings, motivating further investigations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".