Replies: 3 comments
-
Yes, very often empirical spectra, RTs and IMs can be better than predicted, this is expected. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
Thanks so much for your quick response.
…On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 6:15 PM Vadim Demichev ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes, very often empirical spectra, RTs and IMs can be better than
predicted, this is expected.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#702 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A7546NFBXH7PXI46OUR3X3DXGXSCTANCNFSM6AAAAAAYF7YRQY>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
despite I didn't tick "deep learning based spectra" checkbox, the deep learning was done with less number of targets and decoys than those used when i ticked. what is the reason? report.log_NO_deep_learning.txt |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I searched DIA endogenous peptide data against constructed DDA spectral library with and without checking "Deep learning-based spectra" check box.
the results showed that more identification can be obtained without ticing "Deep learning-based spectra" checkbox. i wondering why this happened and if these unique identificaions can be considered as significant ones or not.
thanks in advance.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions