Standardized Protocols for Quality Control of MRM-based Plasma Proteomic Workflows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics is rapidly emerging as a viable technology for the identification and quantitation of biological samples, such as human plasma--the most complex yet commonly employed biofluid in clinical analyses. The transition from a qualitative to quantitative science is required if proteomics is going to successfully make the transition to a clinically useful technique. MS, however, has been criticized for a lack of reproducibility and interlaboratory transferability. Currently, the MS and plasma proteomics communities lack standardized protocols and reagents to ensure that high-quality quantitative data can be accurately and precisely reproduced by laboratories across the world using different MS technologies. Toward addressing this issue, we have developed standard protocols for multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)-based assays with customized isotopically labeled internal standards for quality control of the sample preparation workflow and the MS platform in quantitative plasma proteomic analyses. The development of reference standards and their application to a single MS platform is discussed herein, along with the results from intralaboratory tests. The tests highlighted the importance of the reference standards in assessing the efficiency and reproducibility of the entire bottom-up proteomic workflow and revealed errors related to the sample preparation and performance quality and deficits of the MS and LC systems. Such evaluations are necessary if MRM-based quantitative plasma proteomics is to be used in verifying and validating putative disease biomarkers across different research laboratories and eventually in clinical laboratories.
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 | 0.075 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".