Current trends in quantitative proteomics – an update
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteins can provide insights into biological processes at the functional level, so they are very promising biomarker candidates. The quantification of proteins in biological samples has been routinely used for the diagnosis of diseases and monitoring the treatment. Although large-scale protein quantification in complex samples is still a challenging task, a great amount of effort has been made to advance the technologies that enable quantitative proteomics. Seven years ago, in 2009, we wrote an article about the current trends in quantitative proteomics. In writing this current paper, we realized that, today, we have an even wider selection of potential tools for quantitative proteomics. These tools include new derivatization reagents, novel sampling formats, new types of analyzers and scanning techniques, and recently developed software to assist in assay development and data analysis. In this review article, we will discuss these innovative methods, and their current and potential applications in proteomics. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it