A Framework for Quality Control in Quantitative Proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A thorough evaluation of the quality, reproducibility, and variability of bottom-up proteomics data is necessary at every stage of a workflow, from planning to analysis. We share vignettes applying adaptable quality control (QC) measures to assess sample preparation, system function, and quantitative analysis. System suitability samples are repeatedly measured longitudinally with targeted methods, and we share examples where they are used on three instrument platforms to identify severe system failures and track function over months to years. Internal QCs incorporated at the protein and peptide levels allow our team to assess sample preparation issues and to differentiate system failures from sample-specific issues. External QC samples prepared alongside our experimental samples are used to verify the consistency and quantitative potential of our results during batch correction and normalization before assessing biological phenotypes. We combine these controls with rapid analysis (Skyline), longitudinal QC metrics (AutoQC), and server-based data deposition (PanoramaWeb). We propose that this integrated approach to QC is a useful starting point for groups to facilitate rapid quality control assessment to ensure that valuable instrument time is used to collect the best quality data possible. Data are available on Panorama Public and ProteomeXchange under the identifier PXD051318.
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 | 0.183 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".