Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Journal of Chemometr...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Chemometrics
Article . 2010 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Selection of individual variables versus intervals of variables in PLSR

Authors: Masoud Shariati‐Rad; Masoumeh Hasani;

Selection of individual variables versus intervals of variables in PLSR

Abstract

AbstractThe selection abilities of the two well‐known techniques of variable selection, synergy interval‐partial least‐squares (SiPLS) and genetic algorithm‐partial least‐squares (GA‐PLS), have been examined and compared. By using different simulated and real (corn and metabolite) datasets, keeping in view the spectral overlapping of the components, the influence of the selection of either intervals of variables or individual variables on the prediction performances was examined. In the simulated datasets, with decrease in the overlapping of the spectra of components and cases with components of narrow bands, GA‐PLS results were better. In contrast, the performance of SiPLS was higher for data of intermediate overlapping. For mixtures of high overlapping analytes, GA‐PLS showed slightly better performance. However, significant differences between the results of the two selection methods were not observed in most of the cases. Although SiPLS resulted in slightly better performance of prediction in the case of corn dataset except for the prediction of the moisture content, the improvement obtained by SiPLS compared with that by GA‐PLS was not significant. For real data of less overlapped components (metabolite dataset), GA‐PLS that tends to select far fewer variables did not give significantly better root mean square error of cross‐validation (RMSECV), cross‐validated R2 (Q2), and root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) compared with SiPLS. Irrespective of the type of dataset, GA‐PLS resulted in models with fewer latent variables (LVs). When comparing the computational time of the methods, GA‐PLS is considered superior to SiPLS. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    32
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
32
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!