MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005703146 · doi:10.1002/pmic.201900352

Machine Learning in Mass Spectrometric Analysis of DIA Data

2020· article· en· W3005703146 on OpenAlexafffund
Leon L. Xu, Adamo Young, Audrina Zhou, Hannes Röst

Bibliographic record

VenuePROTEOMICS · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMass spectrometryChromatographyComputer scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid Chromatography coupled to Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) based methods are currently the top choice for high-throughput, quantitative measurements of the proteome. While traditional proteomics LC-MS/MS methods can suffer from issues such as low reproducibility and quantitative accuracy due to its stochastic nature, recent improvements in acquisition protocols have resulted in methods that can overcome these challenges. Data-independent acquisition (DIA) is a novel mass spectrometric method that does so by using a deterministic acquisition strategy. These new approaches will allow researchers to apply MS on more complex samples, however, existing heuristic and expert-knowledge based methods will struggle with keeping pace of the increasing complexity of the resulting data. Deep learning (DL) based methods have been shown to be more adept at handling large amounts of complex data than traditional methods in many other fields, such as computer vision and natural language processing. Proteomics is also entering a phase where the size and complexity of the data will require us to look towards scalable and data-driven DL pipelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePROTEOMICSSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207