ArticleGigaScience2022
Variability analysis of LC-MS experimental factors and their impact on machine learning.
Article in GigaScience, 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.
- Blood proteome profiling for biomarker discovery in broilers with necrotic enteritis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Mass Spectrometry-Based Bottom-Up Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2025Review
- Post-translational modifications of proteins in cardiovascular diseases examined by proteomic approaches.The FEBS journal · 2025Review
- Imputation of label-free quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics data using self-supervised deep learning.Nature communications · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) technologies, especially deep learning (DL), have gained increasing attention in predictive mass spectrometry (MS) for enhancing the data-processing pipeline from raw data analysis to end-user predictions and rescoring. ML models need large-scale datasets for training and repurposing, which can be obtained from a range of public data repositories. However, applying ML to public MS datasets on larger scales is challenging, as they vary widely in terms of data acquisition methods, biological systems, and experimental designs.
resultsWe aim to facilitate ML efforts in MS data by conducting a systematic analysis of the potential sources of variability in public MS repositories. We also examine how these factors affect ML performance and perform a comprehensive transfer learning to evaluate the benefits of current best practice methods in the field for transfer learning.
conclusionsOur findings show significantly higher levels of homogeneity within a project than between projects, which indicates that it is important to construct datasets most closely resembling future test cases, as transferability is severely limited for unseen datasets. We also found that transfer learning, although it did increase model performance, did not increase model performance compared to a non-pretrained model.
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.