Annotation of tandem mass spectrometry data using stochastic neural networks in shotgun proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The discrimination ability of score functions to separate correct from incorrect peptide-spectrum-matches in database-searching-based spectrum identification is hindered by many superfluous peaks belonging to unexpected fragmentation ions or by the lacking peaks of anticipated fragmentation ions. RESULTS: Here, we present a new method, called BoltzMatch, to learn score functions using a particular stochastic neural networks, called restricted Boltzmann machines, in order to enhance their discrimination ability. BoltzMatch learns chemically explainable patterns among peak pairs in the spectrum data, and it can augment peaks depending on their semantic context or even reconstruct lacking peaks of expected ions during its internal scoring mechanism. As a result, BoltzMatch achieved 50% and 33% more annotations on high- and low-resolution MS2 data than XCorr at a 0.1% false discovery rate in our benchmark; conversely, XCorr yielded the same number of spectrum annotations as BoltzMatch, albeit with 4-6 times more errors. In addition, BoltzMatch alone does yield 14% more annotations than Prosit (which runs with Percolator), and BoltzMatch with Percolator yields 32% more annotations than Prosit at 0.1% FDR level in our benchmark. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: BoltzMatch is freely available at: https://github.com/kfattila/BoltzMatch. CONTACT: akerteszfarkas@hse.ru. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".