Scoring information integration with statistical quality control enhanced cross-run analysis of data-independent acquisition proteomics data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The peptide-centric strategy is widely applied in data-independent acquisition (DIA) proteomics to analyze multiplexed MS2 spectra. However, current software tools often rely on single-run data for peptide peak identification, leading to inconsistent quantification across heterogeneous datasets. Match-between-runs (MBR) algorithms address this by aligning peaks or elution profiles post-analysis, but they are often ad hoc and lack statistical frameworks for controlling peak quality, causing false positives and reduced quantitative reproducibility. Here we present DreamDIAlignR, a cross-run peptide-centric tool that integrates peptide elution behavior across runs with a deep learning peak identifier and alignment algorithm for consistent peak picking and FDR-controlled scoring. DreamDIAlignR outperformed state-of-the-art MBR methods, identifying up to 21.2% more quantitatively changing proteins in a benchmark dataset and 36.6% more in a cancer dataset. Additionally, DreamDIAlignR establishes an improved methodology for performing MBR compatible with existing DIA analysis tools, thereby enhancing the overall quality of DIA analysis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".