MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327815421 · doi:10.1021/pr5010955

Qualis-SIS: Automated Standard Curve Generation and Quality Assessment for Multiplexed Targeted Quantitative Proteomic Experiments with Labeled Standards

2014· article· en· W2327815421 on OpenAlexafffund
Yassene Mohammed, Andrew J. Percy, Andrew G. Chambers, Christoph H. Borchers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsGenome British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersWestern Economic Diversification CanadaGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceMultiplexingSoftwareData miningAnalyteProcess (computing)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiplexed targeted quantitative proteomics typically utilizes multiple reaction monitoring and allows the optimized quantification of a large number of proteins. One challenge, however, is the large amount of data that needs to be reviewed, analyzed, and interpreted. Different vendors provide software for their instruments, which determine the recorded responses of the heavy and endogenous peptides and perform the response-curve integration. Bringing multiplexed data together and generating standard curves is often an off-line step accomplished, for example, with spreadsheet software. This can be laborious, as it requires determining the concentration levels that meet the required accuracy and precision criteria in an iterative process. We present here a computer program, Qualis-SIS, that generates standard curves from multiplexed MRM experiments and determines analyte concentrations in biological samples. Multiple level-removal algorithms and acceptance criteria for concentration levels are implemented. When used to apply the standard curve to new samples, the software flags each measurement according to its quality. From the user's perspective, the data processing is instantaneous due to the reactivity paradigm used, and the user can download the results of the stepwise calculations for further processing, if necessary. This allows for more consistent data analysis and can dramatically accelerate the downstream data analysis.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.009

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207