Multiple Testing Issues in Discriminating Compound-Related Peaks and Chromatograms from High Frequency Noise, Spikes and Solvent-Based Noise in LC - MS Data Sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquid Chromatography--Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) is a powerful method for sensitive detection and quantification of proteins and peptides in complex biological fluids like serum. LC-MS produces complex data sets, consisting of some hundreds of millions of data points per sample at a resolution of 0.1 amu in the m/z domain and 7000 data points in the time domain. However, the detection of the lower abundance proteins from this data is hampered by the presence of artefacts, such as high frequency noise and spikes. Moreover, not all of the tens of thousands of the chromatograms produced per sample are relevant for the pursuit of the biomarkers. Thus in analysing the LC-MS data, two critical pre-processing issues arise. Which of the thousands of the: 1. chromatograms per sample are relevant for the detection of the biomarkers?, and 2. signals per chromatogram are truly compound-related? Each of these issues involves assessing the significance (deviation from noise) of multiple observations and the issue of multiple comparisons arises. Current methods disregard the multiplicity and provide no concrete threshold for significance. However, with such procedures, the probability of one or more false-positives is high as the number of tests to be performed is large, and must be controlled. Realizing that the cut-offs for declaring a chromatogram (or a signal) to be compound-related can hugely influence which proteins are detected, it seems natural to define thresholds that are neither arbitrary nor subjective. We suggest the choice of thresholds guided by the critical aim of controlling the False Discovery Rate (FDR) in multiple hypotheses testing for significance over a large set of features produced per sample. This involves the use of the regression diagnostics to characterize the signals of a chromatogram (e.g. as outliers or influential) and to suggest suitable tests statistics for the multiple testing procedures (MTP) for discriminating noise and spikes from true signals. The role of the Generalized Linear Models (GLM) in this MTP is investigated. The method is applied to LC-MS datasets from trypsin-digested serum spiked with varying levels of horse heart cytochrome C (cytoc).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".