ArticleJournal of fluorescence2024
Deep or Shallow? A Comparative Analysis on the Oil Species Identification Based on Excitation-Emission Matrix and Multiple Machine Learning Algorithms.
Article in Journal of fluorescence, 2024. 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.
- Integrated SARA-Fluorescence Analysis of Crude Oil with Fraction-Specific Calibration.Journal of fluorescence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the continuous expansion of petroleum extraction, transportation, and storage, the risk of oil spills at sea has also increased, posing a serious threat to marine safety. The excitation-emission matrix (EEM), which is composed of the fluorometric spectra under multiple excitation wavelengths, becomes a feasible approach to identify oil species. Despite the fact that various machine learning models have been applied to analyse EEMs of oil pollutants, it is unclear how much improvements the deep learning models have achieved, especially comparing with the shallow learning models. This paper presents a comparative analysis on the oil species identification using four types of machine learning models: random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), back propagation neural network (BPNN), and deep convolutional neural network (DCNN). The fluorescence of some common oils was excited using a tuneable xenon lamp and collected with a high-resolution spectrometer to form the EEMs for model training and testing.The results show that SVM, BPNN, and DCNN achieved high identification accuracies that are more than 93% on all types of oils tested in the study. The two deep learning models didn't have significant improvement over the SVM model. Considering the fact that the deep learning models require much larger number of calculations and longer running time, the SVM tends to be more suitable for oil species identification when considering the balance between the model accuracy and efficiency. This study provides some guidance on the choices of oil species identification model in the cases of oil spills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37962766What 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.