Metrics for the Human Proteome Project 2015: Progress on the Human Proteome and Guidelines for High-Confidence Protein Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remarkable progress continues on the annotation of the proteins identified in the Human Proteome and on finding credible proteomic evidence for the expression of "missing proteins". Missing proteins are those with no previous protein-level evidence or insufficient evidence to make a confident identification upon reanalysis in PeptideAtlas and curation in neXtProt. Enhanced with several major new data sets published in 2014, the human proteome presented as neXtProt, version 2014-09-19, has 16,491 unique confident proteins (PE level 1), up from 13,664 at 2012-12 and 15,646 at 2013-09. That leaves 2948 missing proteins from genes classified having protein existence level PE 2, 3, or 4, as well as 616 dubious proteins at PE 5. Here, we document the progress of the HPP and discuss the importance of assessing the quality of evidence, confirming automated findings and considering alternative protein matches for spectra and peptides. We provide guidelines for proteomics investigators to apply in reporting newly identified proteins.
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 | 0.063 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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".