Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34862414›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

LC-MS peak assignment based on unanimous selection by six machine learning algorithms.

Hiroaki Ito, Takashi Matsui, Ryo Konno, Makoto Itakura, Yoshio Kodera

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hiroaki Ito *Department of Physics, School of Science, Kitasato University, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0373, Japan.
Takashi Matsui *Department of Physics, School of Science, Kitasato University, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0373, Japan.
Ryo KonnoDepartment of Physics, School of Science, Kitasato University, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0373, Japan.
Makoto ItakuraCenter for Disease Proteomics, School of Science, Kitasato University, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, 252-0373, Japan.
Yoshio KoderaDepartment of Physics, School of Science, Kitasato University, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0373, Japan. kodera@kitasato-u.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsChromatography, LiquidMachine LearningPeptidesProteomicsTandem Mass SpectrometryPeptides

Identifiers

PMID34862414
PMCPMC8642397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.