SPEQ: quality assessment of peptide tandem mass spectra with deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: In proteomics, database search programs are routinely used for peptide identification from tandem mass spectrometry data. However, many low-quality spectra cannot be interpreted by any programs. Meanwhile, certain high-quality spectra may not be identified due to incompleteness of the database or failure of the software. Thus, spectrum quality (SPEQ) assessment tools are helpful programs that can eliminate poor-quality spectra before the database search and highlight the high-quality spectra that are not identified in the initial search. These spectra may be valuable candidates for further analyses. RESULTS: We propose SPEQ: a spectrum quality assessment tool that uses a deep neural network to classify spectra into high-quality, which are worthy candidates for interpretation, and low-quality, which lack sufficient information for identification. SPEQ was compared with a few other prediction models and demonstrated improved prediction accuracy. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code and scripts are freely available at github.com/sor8sh/SPEQ, implemented in Python.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".