Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39517933›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Comparison of Classical and Inverse Calibration Equations in Chemical Analysis.

Hsuan-Yu Chen, Chiachung Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hsuan-Yu ChenAfrica Industrial Research Center, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 40227, Taiwan.
Chiachung ChenDepartment of Bio-Industrial Mechatronics Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 40227, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-4617-9619

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical analysis adopts a calibration curve to establish the relationship between the measuring technique's response and the target analyte's standard concentration. The calibration equation is established using regression analysis to verify the response of a chemical instrument to the known properties of materials that served as standard values. An adequate calibration equation ensures the performance of these instruments. There are two kinds of calibration equations: classical equations and inverse equations. For the classical equation, the standard values are independent, and the instrument's response is dependent. The inverse equation is the opposite: the instrument's response is the independent value. For the new response value, the calculation of the new measurement by the classical equation must be transformed into a complex form to calculate the measurement values. However, the measurement values of the inverse equation could be computed directly. Different forms of calibration equations besides the linear equation could be used for the inverse calibration equation. This study used measurement data sets from two kinds of humidity sensors and nine data sets from the literature to evaluate the predictive performance of two calibration equations. Four criteria were proposed to evaluate the predictive ability of two calibration equations. The study found that the inverse calibration equation could be an effective tool for complex calibration equations in chemical analysis. The precision of the instrument's response is essential to ensure predictive performance. The inverse calibration equation could be embedded into the measurement device, and then intelligent instruments could be enhanced.

Indexed as

calibrationclassical equationinverse equationpredictive performance

Identifiers

PMID39517933
PMCPMC11548636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.