ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
TIDD: tool-independent and data-dependent machine learning for peptide identification.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics and Metabolomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027Article
- Phylogenetic tree-based amino acid sequence generation for proteomics data analysis of unknown species.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Current progress and critical challenges to overcome in the bioinformatics of mass spectrometry-based metaproteomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- FineFDR: Fine-grained Taxonomy-specific False Discovery Rates Control in Metaproteomics.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn shotgun proteomics, database search engines have been developed to assign peptides to tandem mass (MS/MS) spectra and at the same time post-processing (or rescoring) approaches over the search results have been proposed to increase the number of confident peptide identifications. The most popular post-processing approaches such as Percolator and PeptideProphet have improved rates of peptide identifications by combining multiple scores from database search engines while applying machine learning techniques. Existing post-processing approaches, however, are limited when dealing with results from new search engines because their features for machine learning must be optimized specifically for each search engine.
resultsWe propose a universal post-processing tool, called TIDD, which supports confident peptide identifications regardless of the search engine adopted. TIDD can work for any (including newly developed) search engines because it calculates universal features that assess peptide-spectrum match quality while it allows additional features provided by search engines (or users) as well. Even though it relies on universal features independent of search tools, TIDD showed similar or better performance than Percolator in terms of peptide identification. TIDD identified 10.23-38.95% more PSMs than target-decoy estimation for MSFragger, which is not supported by Percolator. TIDD offers an easy-to-use simple graphical user interface for user convenience.
conclusionsTIDD successfully eliminated the requirement for an optimal feature engineering per database search tool, and thus, can be applied directly to any database search results including newly developed ones.
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.