Cumulative learning enables convolutional neural network representations for small mass spectrometry data classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid and accurate clinical diagnosis remains challenging. A component of diagnosis tool development is the design of effective classification models with Mass spectrometry (MS) data. Some Machine Learning approaches have been investigated but these models require time-consuming preprocessing steps to remove artifacts, making them unsuitable for rapid analysis. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have been found to perform well under such circumstances since they can learn representations from raw data. However, their effectiveness decreases when the number of available training samples is small, which is a common situation in medicine. In this work, we investigate transfer learning on 1D-CNNs, then we develop a cumulative learning method when transfer learning is not powerful enough. We propose to train the same model through several classification tasks over various small datasets to accumulate knowledge in the resulting representation. By using rat brain as the initial training dataset, a cumulative learning approach can have a classification accuracy exceeding 98% for 1D clinical MS-data. We show the use of cumulative learning using datasets generated in different biological contexts, on different organisms, and acquired by different instruments. Here we show a promising strategy for improving MS data classification accuracy when only small numbers of samples are available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".