MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167933346 · doi:10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c01029

MSTracer: A Machine Learning Software Tool for Peptide Feature Detection from Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Data

2021· article· en· W3167933346 on OpenAlexafffund
Bin Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario GenomicsGenome Canada
KeywordsSoftwareProteomicsMass spectrometryPeptideComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Tandem mass spectrometryChromatographyLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryArtificial intelligenceData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) has been widely used in proteomics. Although a typical experiment includes both MS and MS/MS scans, existing bioinformatics research has focused far more on MS/MS data than on MS data. In MS data, each peptide produces a few trails of signal peaks, which are collectively called a peptide feature. Here, we introduce MSTracer, a new software tool for detecting peptide features from MS data. The software incorporates two scoring functions based on machine learning: one for detecting the peptide features and the other for assigning a quality score to each detected feature. The software was compared with several existing tools and demonstrated significantly better performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207