4.7 Article

Geographical origin identification of ginseng using near-infrared spectroscopy coupled with subspace-based ensemble classifiers

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2023.123315

关键词

Near-infrared; Geographical origin; Ginseng; Random subspace; Ensemble

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the feasibility of using near-infrared spectroscopy combined with ensemble learning to discriminate the origin of Ginseng. The final models showed high sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy.
Ginseng is a well-known traditional herbal medicine and the ginseng available on the market may not actually be produced in a certain place as claimed. Traditional methods of identifying the geographical origin of Ginseng are subjective, time-consuming or destructive. A more efficient approach is desirable. The feasibility of combining near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy with ensemble learning for discriminating ginseng producing area was explored. A total of 270 samples were collected and evenly partitioned into the training and test sets. Random subspace ensemble (RSE) that uses linear discriminant classifier (LDA) as weak learner (abbreviated RSE-LDA) was used to construct predictive models. Two parameters including the size of subspace and the number of learners in ensemble were optimized. Classic partial least algorithm (PLS) was applied to build the reference model. The sensitivity, specificity, and total accuracy of final RSE-LDA and PLS models were 97.8 %, 100 %, 99.3 %, and 93.3 %, 96.7 %, 95.6 %, respectively. In order to study the impact of training set composition on the results, the samples were randomly divided 200 times and the algorithm was run repeatedly to statistically analyze the sensitivity and specificity on the test set. Similar results were obtained. The effect of training set size was also investigated. It indicates that the combination of NIR spectroscopy with the RSE algorithm is a potential tool of discriminating the origin of Ginseng.

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