Comparative Analysis of Data‐Driven Rescoring Platforms for Improved Peptide Identification in HeLa Digest Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Mass spectrometry is a critical tool to understand complex changes in biological processes. Despite significant advances in search engine technology, many spectra remain unassigned. This research evaluates the performance of three rescoring platforms, Oktoberfest, MS 2 Rescore, and inSPIRE, using MaxQuant output. The results indicated a substantial increase in identifications at the peptide level (40%–53%) and PSM level (64%–67%). However, some peptides were lost due to limitations in processing posttranslational modifications (PTMs)—with up to 75% of lost peptides exhibiting PTMs. Each platform displayed distinct strengths and weaknesses. For instance, inSPIRE performed best in terms of peptide identifications and unique peptides, while MS 2 Rescore performed better for PSMs at higher FDR values. Differences in platform performance stemmed from different sources: original search engine feature selection, type of ion series predicted, retention time predictor, and PTMs compatibility. Overall, inSPIRE showed a superior ability to harness original search engine results. Taken all together, rescoring platforms clearly outperformed original search results; however, they demanded additional computation time (up to 77%) and manual adjustments. The findings here underline the necessity of integrating rescoring platforms into current proteomics pipelines but also address some challenges in their implementation and optimization. Future integrated platforms may help enhance adoption.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".