MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405372891 · doi:10.1039/d4an00967c

Reproducible protein quantitation of 270 human proteins at increased depth using nanoparticle-based fractionation and multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry with stable isotope-labelled internal standards

2024· article· en· W4405372891 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudia Gaither, Robert Popp, Aaron S. Gajadhar, Christoph H. Borchers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Cancer InstituteWarren Y. Soper Charitable TrustFondation De Famille Alvin SegalJewish General HospitalTerry Fox Research InstituteGenome British ColumbiaGenome CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsFractionationChemistryChromatographyMass spectrometryDigestion (alchemy)TrypsinNanoparticleQuantitative proteomicsProteomicsBiochemistryEnzymeNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

13.1% CV). As expected, the protein concentrations in nanoparticle coronas were higher and had more compressed dynamic range in comparison to the concentrations determined either by a 3-hour Trypsin/LysC or overnight tryptic digestion methods. As the nanoparticle-based fractionation technology gains popularity, additional steps such as establishing technique-specific protein reference ranges across plasma samples and comparisons to well-established protein quantitation methods like enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and LC/MRM-MS may be explored to enable absolute quantification of plasma proteins based on nanoparticle-based fractionation 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207