Enhancing Classification of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry data with Batch Effect Removal Neural Networks (BERNN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) is a powerful method for profiling complex biological samples. However, batch effects typically arise from differences in sample processing protocols, experimental conditions and data acquisition techniques, significantlyimpacting the interpretability of results. Correcting batch effects is crucial for the reproducibility of proteomics research, but current methods are not optimal for removal of batch effects without compressing the genuine biological variation under study. We propose a suite of Batch Effect Removal Neural Networks (BERNN) to remove batch effects in large LC-MS experiments, with the goal of maximizing sample classification performance between conditions. More importantly, these models must efficiently generalize in batches not seen during training. Comparison of batch effect correction methods across three diverse datasets demonstrated that BERNN models consistently showed the strongest sample classification performance. However, the model producing the greatest classification improvements did not always perform best in terms of batch effect removal. Finally, we show that overcorrection of batch effects resulted in the loss of some essential biological variability. These findings highlight the importance of balancing batch effect removal while preserving valuable biological diversity in large-scale LC-MS experiments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".