ArticleScientific reports2021
LC-MS peak assignment based on unanimous selection by six machine learning algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Finding differentially expressed genes between cell fates predicted by image-based deep learning.Biophysics and physicobiology · 2025Article
- Prediction of inherited metabolic disorders using tandem mass spectrometry data with the help of artificial neural networks.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent mass spectrometry (MS)-based techniques enable deep proteome coverage with relative quantitative analysis, resulting in increased identification of very weak signals accompanied by increased data size of liquid chromatography (LC)-MS/MS spectra. However, the identification of weak signals using an assignment strategy with poorer performance results in imperfect quantification with misidentification of peaks and ratio distortions. Manually annotating a large number of signals within a very large dataset is not a realistic approach. In this study, therefore, we utilized machine learning algorithms to successfully extract a higher number of peptide peaks with high accuracy and precision. Our strategy evaluated each peak identified using six different algorithms; peptide peaks identified by all six algorithms (i.e., unanimously selected) were subsequently assigned as true peaks, which resulted in a reduction in the false-positive rate. Hence, exact and highly quantitative peptide peaks were obtained, providing better performance than obtained applying the conventional criteria or using a single machine learning algorithm.
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.