NovoBoard: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating the False Discovery Rate and Accuracy of De Novo Peptide Sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De novo peptide sequencing is one of the most fundamental research areas in mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Many methods have often been evaluated using a couple of simple metrics that do not fully reflect their overall performance. Moreover, there has not been an established method to estimate the false discovery rate (FDR) of de novo peptide-spectrum matches. Here we propose NovoBoard, a comprehensive framework to evaluate the performance of de novo peptide-sequencing methods. The framework consists of diverse benchmark datasets (including tryptic, nontryptic, immunopeptidomics, and different species) and a standard set of accuracy metrics to evaluate the fragment ions, amino acids, and peptides of the de novo results. More importantly, a new approach is designed to evaluate de novo peptide-sequencing methods on target-decoy spectra and to estimate and validate their FDRs. Our FDR estimation provides valuable information to assess the reliability of new peptides identified by de novo sequencing tools, especially when no ground-truth information is available to evaluate their accuracy. The FDR estimation can also be used to evaluate the capability of de novo peptide sequencing tools to distinguish between de novo peptide-spectrum matches and random matches. Our results thoroughly reveal the strengths and weaknesses of different de novo peptide-sequencing methods and how their performances depend on specific applications and the types of data.
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 | 0.001 | 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".