Exploring the variable space of shallow machine learning models for reversed-phase retention time prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peptide retention time (RT) prediction algorithms are tools to study and identify the physicochemical properties that drive the peptide-sorbent interaction. Traditional RT algorithms use multiple linear regression with manually curated parameters to determine the degree of direct contribution for each parameter and improvements to RT prediction accuracies relied on superior feature engineering. Deep learning led to a significant increase in RT prediction accuracy and automated feature engineering via chaining multiple learning modules. However, the significance and the identity of these extracted variables are not well understood due to the inherent complexity when interpreting "relationships-of-relationships" found in deep learning variables. To achieve both accuracy and interpretability simultaneously, we isolated individual modules used in deep learning and the isolated modules are the shallow learners employed for RT prediction in this work. Using a shallow convolutional neural network (CNN) and gated recurrent unit (GRU), we find that the spatial features obtained via the CNN correlate with real-world physicochemical properties namely cross-collisional sections (CCS) and variations of assessable surface area (ASA). Furthermore, we determined that the discovered parameters are "micro-coefficients" that contribute to the "macro-coefficient" - hydrophobicity. Manually embedding CCS and the variations of ASA to the GRU model yielded an R2 = 0.981 using only 525 variables and can represent 88% of the ∼110,000 tryptic peptides used in our dataset. This work highlights the feature discovery process of our shallow learners can achieve beyond traditional RT models in performance and have better interpretability when compared with the deep learning RT algorithms found in the literature.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".