References in periodicals archive ?
Calibration calculations were conducted using comparatively CPCR, HPCR, HPLS, and MBPLS methods for the training set data (I = 84 samples).
Additionally, the predictive performance of the CPCR, HPCR, HPLS, and MBPLS analytical models was comparatively assessed by determining the values of the following two derived parameters: mean no-sign relative-to-target error of prediction and mean no-sign relative error of prediction (Table 6).
The parameters [r.sup.2], PRESS, MNSRTEP, and MNSREP have practically the same values for F = 1 for all three techniques: CPCR, HPCR, and MBPLS. Although the values obtained for HPLS are different than that for the other methods, the difference is not significant.
The performance of all four techniques is equivalent to the exception of the HPLS and MBPLS results for F = 3, which are worse than that of the other methods.
Figure 9 presents a comparison of the actual concentrations of suppressor with those predicted by CPCR, MBPLS, HPCR, and HPLS for the external validation set of 27 samples for F = 2 demonstrating equivalent performance of all techniques and providing evidence for the absence of artifacts in the selected voltammetric data.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- Mboya, Thomas Joseph