Recent advances in applying mass spectrometry and systems biology to determine brain dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Neurological disorders encompass various pathologies which disrupt normal brain physiology and function. Poor understanding of their underlying molecular mechanisms and their societal burden argues for the necessity of novel prevention strategies, early diagnostic techniques and alternative treatment options to reduce the scale of their expected increase. Areas covered: This review scrutinizes mass spectrometry based approaches used to investigate brain dynamics in various conditions, including neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders. Different proteomics workflows for isolation/enrichment of specific cell populations or brain regions, sample processing; mass spectrometry technologies, for differential proteome quantitation, analysis of post-translational modifications and imaging approaches in the brain are critically deliberated. Future directions, including analysis of cellular sub-compartments, targeted MS platforms (selected/parallel reaction monitoring) and use of mass cytometry are also discussed. Expert commentary: Here, we summarize and evaluate current mass spectrometry based approaches for determining brain dynamics in health and diseases states, with a focus on neurological disorders. Furthermore, we provide insight on current trends and new MS technologies with potential to improve this 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".