Peak-tracking algorithm for use in comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography – Application to monoclonal-antibody peptides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A peak-tracking algorithm was developed for use in comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. Chromatographic peaks were tracked across two different chromatograms, utilizing the available spectral information, the statistical moments of the peaks and the relative retention times in both dimensions. The algorithm consists of three branches. In the pre-processing branch, system peaks are removed based on mass spectra compared to low intensity regions and search windows are applied, relative to the retention times in each dimension, to reduce the required computational power by elimination unlikely pairs. In the comparison branch, similarity between the spectral information and statistical moments of peaks within the search windows is calculated. Lastly, in the evaluation branch extracted-ion-current chromatograms are utilized to assess the validity of the pairing results. The algorithm was applied to peptide retention data recorded under varying chromatographic conditions for use in retention modelling as part of method optimization tools. Moreover, the algorithm was applied to complex peptide mixtures obtained from enzymatic digestion of monoclonal antibodies. The algorithm yielded no false positives. However, due to limitations in the peak-detection algorithm, cross-pairing within the same peaks occurred and six trace compounds remained falsely unpaired.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".