BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

William Stafford Noble

William Stafford Noble contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsBiomoleculesMethodologyQuantitative Methods

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Competition-based control of the false discovery proportion

Recently, Barber and Candès laid the theoretical foundation for a general framework for false discovery rate (FDR) control based on the notion of "knockoffs." A closely related FDR control methodology has long been employed in the analysis of mass spectrometry data, referred to there as "target-decoy competition" (TDC). However, any approach that aims to control the FDR, which is defined as the expected value of the false discovery proportion (FDP), suffers from a problem. Specifically, even when successfully controlling the FDR at level $α$, the FDP in the list of discoveries can significantly exceed $α$. We offer FDP-SD, a new procedure that rigorously controls the FDP in the competition (knockoff / TDC) setup by guaranteeing that the FDP is bounded by $α$ at any desired confidence level. Compared with the just-published general framework of Katsevich and Ramdas, FDP-SD generally delivers more power and often substantially so in simulated as well as real data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

On the feasibility and utility of exploiting real time database search to improve adaptive peak selection

Rationale: In a shotgun proteomics experiment with data-dependent acquisition, real-time analysis of a precursor scan results in selection of a handful of peaks for subsequent isolation, fragmentation and secondary scanning. This peak selection protocol typically focuses on the most abundant peaks in the precursor scan, while attempting to avoid re-sampling the same m/z values in rapid succession. The protocol does not, however, incorporate analysis of previous fragmentation scans into the peak selection procedure. Methods: In this work, we investigate the feasibility and utility of incorporating analysis of previous fragmentation scans into the peak selection protocol. We demonstrate that real-time identification of fragmentation spectra is feasible in principle, and we investigate, via simulations, several strategies to make use of the resulting peptide identifications during peak selection. Results: Our simulations fail to provide evidence that peptide identifications can provide a large improvement in the total number of peptides identified by a shotgun proteomics experiment. Conclusions: These results are significant because they point out the feasibility of using peptide identifications during peak selection, and because our experiments may provide a starting point for others working in this direction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access