ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2016
Valid Probabilistic Predictions for Ginseng with Venn Machines Using Electronic Nose.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Discrimination between Alternative Herbal Medicines from Different Categories with the Electronic Nose.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the application of electronic noses (E-noses), probabilistic prediction is a good way to estimate how confident we are about our prediction. In this work, a homemade E-nose system embedded with 16 metal-oxide semi-conductive gas sensors was used to discriminate nine kinds of ginsengs of different species or production places. A flexible machine learning framework, Venn machine (VM) was introduced to make probabilistic predictions for each prediction. Three Venn predictors were developed based on three classical probabilistic prediction methods (Platt's method, Softmax regression and Naive Bayes). Three Venn predictors and three classical probabilistic prediction methods were compared in aspect of classification rate and especially the validity of estimated probability. A best classification rate of 88.57% was achieved with Platt's method in offline mode, and the classification rate of VM-SVM (Venn machine based on Support Vector Machine) was 86.35%, just 2.22% lower. The validity of Venn predictors performed better than that of corresponding classical probabilistic prediction methods. The validity of VM-SVM was superior to the other methods. The results demonstrated that Venn machine is a flexible tool to make precise and valid probabilistic prediction in the application of E-nose, and VM-SVM achieved the best performance for the probabilistic prediction of ginseng samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.