Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35475237›Full record

ReviewCell reports methods2021

Deep learning neural network tools for proteomics.

Jesse G Meyer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell reports methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Integrating multi-omics and machine learning for disease resistance prediction in legumes.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Review
  13. A Fast Neural Network for Isotopic Charge State Assignment.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Jesse G MeyerDepartment of Biochemistry, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass-spectrometry-based proteomics enables quantitative analysis of thousands of human proteins. However, experimental and computational challenges restrict progress in the field. This review summarizes the recent flurry of machine-learning strategies using artificial deep neural networks (or "deep learning") that have started to break barriers and accelerate progress in the field of shotgun proteomics. Deep learning now accurately predicts physicochemical properties of peptides from their sequence, including tandem mass spectra and retention time. Furthermore, deep learning methods exist for nearly every aspect of the modern proteomics workflow, enabling improved feature selection, peptide identification, and protein inference.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerProteomicsHumansPeptidesProteinsTandem Mass SpectrometryPeptidesProteinsbioinformaticsdeep learningmass spectrometryMS/MSneural networkspeptidesproteomicsretention time

Identifiers

PMID35475237
PMCPMC9017218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.