Modeling protein tandem mass spectrometry data with an extended linear regression strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) has emerged as a cornerstone of proteomics owing in part to robust spectral interpretation algorithm. The intensity patterns presented in mass spectra are useful information for identification of peptides and proteins. However, widely used algorithms can not predicate the peak intensity patterns exactly. We have developed a systematic analytical approach based on a family of extended regression models, which permits routine, large scale protein expression profile modeling. By proving an important technical result that the regression coefficient vector is just the eigenvector corresponding to the least eigenvalue of a space transformed version of the original data, this extended regression problem can be reduced to a SVD decomposition problem, thus gain the robustness and efficiency. To evaluate the performance of our model, from 60,960 spectra, we chose 2,859 with high confidence, non redundant matches as training data, based on this specific problem, we derived some measurements of goodness of fit to show that our modeling method is reasonable. The issues of overfitting and underfitting are also discussed. This extended regression strategy therefore offers an effective and efficient framework for in-depth investigation of complex mammalian proteomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".