Visualizing and comparing results of different peptide identification methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mass spectrometry-based proteomics, peptides are typically identified from tandem mass spectra using spectrum comparison. A sequence search engine compares experimentally obtained spectra with those predicted from protein sequences, applying enzyme cleavage and fragmentation rules. To this, there are two main alternatives: spectral libraries and de novo sequencing. The former compares measured spectra with a collection of previously acquired and identified spectra in a library. De novo attempts to sequence peptides from the tandem mass spectra alone. We here present a theoretical framework and a data processing workflow for visualizing and comparing the results of these different types of algorithms. The method considers the three search strategies as different dimensions, identifies distinct agreement classes and visualizes the complementarity of the search strategies. We have included X! Tandem, SpectraST and PepNovo, as they are in common use and representative for algorithms of each type. Our method allows advanced investigation of how the three search methods perform relatively to each other and shows the impact of the currently used decoy sequences for evaluating the false discovery rates.
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".