↓ Skip to main content

A cross-validation scheme for machine learning algorithms in shotgun proteomics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cross-validation scheme for machine learning algorithms in shotgun proteomics
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-s16-s3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Viktor Granholm, William Stafford Noble, Lukas Käll

Abstract

Peptides are routinely identified from mass spectrometry-based proteomics experiments by matching observed spectra to peptides derived from protein databases. The error rates of these identifications can be estimated by target-decoy analysis, which involves matching spectra to shuffled or reversed peptides. Besides estimating error rates, decoy searches can be used by semi-supervised machine learning algorithms to increase the number of confidently identified peptides. As for all machine learning algorithms, however, the results must be validated to avoid issues such as overfitting or biased learning, which would produce unreliable peptide identifications. Here, we discuss how the target-decoy method is employed in machine learning for shotgun proteomics, focusing on how the results can be validated by cross-validation, a frequently used validation scheme in machine learning. We also use simulated data to demonstrate the proposed cross-validation scheme's ability to detect overfitting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 70 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 16%
Computer Science 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,332,122
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,289
of 7,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,722
of 183,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#89
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 183,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.