4.7 Article

Improvement of spectral calibration for food analysis through multi-model fusion

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2012.05.079

关键词

Multivariate calibration; Near-infrared spectroscopy; Multi-model; Fusion; Food analysis

资金

  1. Sichuan Youth Science and Technology Foundation [09ZQ026-066]
  2. Youth Foundation of Yibin University [2010Q11]
  3. Key Research Foundation of Yibin University [2011Z22]
  4. Innovative Research and Teaching Team Program of Yibin University [Cx201104]
  5. Scientific Research Fund of Sichuan Provincial Education Department of China [12ZA201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy will present a more promising tool for quantitative analysis if the predictive ability of the calibration model is further improved. To achieve this goal, a new ensemble calibration method based on uninformative variable elimination (UVE)-partial least square (PLS) is proposed, which is named as ensemble PLS (EPLS), meaning a fusion of multiple PLS models. In this method, different calibration sets are first generated by bootstrap and different PLS models are obtained. Then, the UVE is used to shrink the original variable space into a specific subspace. By repeating this process, a fixed number of candidates PLS member models are obtained. Finally, a smaller part of candidate models are integrated to produce an ensemble model. In order to verify the performance of EPLS, three NIR spectral datasets from food industry were used for illustration. Both full-spectrum PLS and UVEPLS of single models were used as reference. It was found that the proposed method could lead to lower RMSEP (root mean square error of prediction) value than PLS and UVEPLS and such an improvement is statistically significant according to a paired t-test. The results showed that the method is of value to enhance the predictive ability of PLS-based calibration involving complex NIR matrices in food analysis. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据