ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Ground Truth-Based Evaluation of False Discovery Rate and Statistical Power in DIA Proteomics.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data-independent acquisition (DIA) mass spectrometry enables rapid proteomic quantification, yet the reliability of statistical inference in DIA-based protein quantification remains incompletely understood. Here, we systematically evaluated missingness, false discovery rate (FDR), and statistical power, defined as true positive rate (i.e. sensitivity or recall), using technical replicates and a spike-in benchmark with known ground truth. Analysis of 18 HeLa replicates revealed persistent, abundance-dependent missingness. In the spike-in experiment with five replicates, human peptides were titrated against a stable yeast background, allowing fold changes (FCs) to be compared with expected values. Across comparisons with log2FCs ranging from 0.2 to 2.5, the nominal BH-FDR substantially underestimated the true FDR. For example, at a BH-FDR threshold of 0.05, the true FDR was ~0.2. Statistical power was ~40% for a log2FC of 0.2 and increased to nearly 100% for a log2FC of 2.5. Additional incorporation of FC thresholds improved the true FDR for large-FC comparisons, with slight loss of power, but markedly reduced sensitivity for small-FC comparisons. Together, these results indicate that nominal FDR does not necessarily reflect actual error rates in DIA proteomics and that DIA performance is influenced by protein abundance and expected fold changes. This study provides a framework for experimental design and data interpretation in DIA-based proteomic studies.
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.