ArticleJournal of proteome research2019
Speeding Up Percolator.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-specific responses to slow progressive pressure overload in a large animal model of HFpEF.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2022Article
- TIDD: tool-independent and data-dependent machine learning for peptide identification.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Binary Classifier for Computing Posterior Error Probabilities in MetaMorpheus.Journal of proteome research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The processing of peptide tandem mass spectrometry data involves matching observed spectra against a sequence database. The ranking and calibration of these peptide-spectrum matches can be improved substantially using a machine learning postprocessor. Here, we describe our efforts to speed up one widely used postprocessor, Percolator. The improved software is dramatically faster than the previous version of Percolator, even when using relatively few processors. We tested the new version of Percolator on a data set containing over 215 million spectra and recorded an overall reduction to 23% of the running time as compared to the unoptimized code. We also show that the memory footprint required by these speedups is modest relative to that of the original version of Percolator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.