Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current mainstream software for peptide-centric tandem mass spectrometry data analysis can be categorized as either database-driven, which rely on a library of mass spectra to identify the peptide associated with novel query spectra, or de novo sequencing-based, which aim to find the entire peptide sequence by relying only on the query mass spectrum. While the first paradigm currently produces state-of-the-art results in peptide identification tasks, it does not inherently make use of information present in the query mass spectrum itself to refine identifications. Meanwhile, de novo approaches attempt to solve a complex problem in one go, without any search space constraints in the general case, leading to comparatively poor results. In this paper, we decompose the de novo problem into putatively easier subproblems, and we show that peptide identification rates of database-driven methods may be improved in terms of peptide identification rate by solving one such subsproblem without requiring a solution for the complete de novo task. We demonstrate this using a de novo peptide length prediction task as the chosen subproblem. As a first prototype, we show that a deep learning-based length prediction model increases peptide identification rates in the ProteomeTools dataset as part of an Pepid-based identification pipeline. Using the predicted information to better rank the candidates, we show that combining ideas from the two paradigms produces clear benefits in this setting. We propose that the next generation of peptide-centric tandem mass spectrometry identification methods should combine elements of these paradigms by mining facts “de novo; about the peptide represented in a spectrum, while simultaneously limiting the search space with a peptide candidates database.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".