First Community-Wide, Comparative Cross-Linking Mass Spectrometry Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of publications in the field of chemical cross-linking combined with mass spectrometry (XL-MS) to derive constraints for protein three-dimensional structure modeling and to probe protein-protein interactions has increased during the last years. As the technique is now becoming routine for in vitro and in vivo applications in proteomics and structural biology there is a pressing need to define protocols as well as data analysis and reporting formats. Such consensus formats should become accepted in the field and be shown to lead to reproducible results. This first, community-based harmonization study on XL-MS is based on the results of 32 groups participating worldwide. The aim of this paper is to summarize the status quo of XL-MS and to compare and evaluate existing cross-linking strategies. Our study therefore builds the framework for establishing best practice guidelines to conduct cross-linking experiments, perform data analysis, and define reporting formats with the ultimate goal of assisting scientists to generate accurate and reproducible XL-MS results.
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 | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".