ArticleJournal of fluorescence2017
Comparison between Two Linear Supervised Learning Machines' Methods with Principle Component Based Methods for the Spectrofluorimetric Determination of Agomelatine and Its Degradants.
Article in Journal of fluorescence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Four accurate, sensitive and reliable stability indicating chemometric methods were developed for the quantitative determination of Agomelatine (AGM) whether in pure form or in pharmaceutical formulations. Two supervised learning machines' methods; linear artificial neural networks (PC-linANN) preceded by principle component analysis and linear support vector regression (linSVR), were compared with two principle component based methods; principle component regression (PCR) as well as partial least squares (PLS) for the spectrofluorimetric determination of AGM and its degradants. The results showed the benefits behind using linear learning machines' methods and the inherent merits of their algorithms in handling overlapped noisy spectral data especially during the challenging determination of AGM alkaline and acidic degradants (DG1 and DG2). Relative mean squared error of prediction (RMSEP) for the proposed models in the determination of AGM were 1.68, 1.72, 0.68 and 0.22 for PCR, PLS, SVR and PC-linANN; respectively. The results showed the superiority of supervised learning machines' methods over principle component based methods. Besides, the results suggested that linANN is the method of choice for determination of components in low amounts with similar overlapped spectra and narrow linearity range. Comparison between the proposed chemometric models and a reported HPLC method revealed the comparable performance and quantification power of the proposed models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28251418What 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.