ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Comparison of Soil Total Nitrogen Content Prediction Models Based on Vis-NIR Spectroscopy.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research on the Effects of Drying Temperature for the Detection of Soil Nitrogen by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Vis-NIR Spectroscopy Combined with GAN Data Augmentation for Predicting Soil Nutrients in Degraded Alpine Meadows on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Detection of Plastic Granules and Their Mixtures.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Review of Machine Learning for Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Machine Learning Strategy for Soil Nutrients Prediction Using Spectroscopic Method.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visible-near-infrared spectrum (Vis-NIR) spectroscopy technology is one of the most important methods for non-destructive and rapid detection of soil total nitrogen (STN) content. In order to find a practical way to build STN content prediction model, three conventional machine learning methods and one deep learning approach are investigated and their predictive performances are compared and analyzed by using a public dataset called LUCAS Soil (19,019 samples). The three conventional machine learning methods include ordinary least square estimation (OLSE), random forest (RF), and extreme learning machine (ELM), while for the deep learning method, three different structures of convolutional neural network (CNN) incorporated Inception module are constructed and investigated. In order to clarify effectiveness of different pre-treatments on predicting STN content, the three conventional machine learning methods are combined with four pre-processing approaches (including baseline correction, smoothing, dimensional reduction, and feature selection) are investigated, compared, and analyzed. The results indicate that the baseline-corrected and smoothed ELM model reaches practical precision (coefficient of determination (R
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.