ArticleBMC chemistry2024
Decoding the synergy: unveiling gradient boosting regression model for multivariate quantitation of pioglitazone, alogliptin and glimepiride in pure and tablet dosage forms.
Article in BMC chemistry, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study represents a comparison among the performances of four multivariate procedures: partial least square (PLS) and artificial neural networks (ANN) in addition to support vector regression (SVR) and extreme gradient boosting (XG Boost) algorithm for the determination of the anti-diabetic mixture of pioglitazone (PIO), alogliptin (ALG) and glimepiride (GLM) in pharmaceutical formulations with aid of UV spectrometry. Key wavelengths were selected using knowledge-based variable selection and various preprocessing methods (e.g., mean centering, orthogonal scatter correction, and principal component analysis) to minimize noise and improve model precision. XG Boost effectively enhanced computing speed and accuracy by focusing on specific spectral features rather than the entire spectrum, demonstrating its advantages in resolving complex, overlapping spectral data. The independent test results of different models demonstrated that XG Boost outperformed other methods. XG Boost achieved the lowest root mean squared error of prediction (RMSEP) and standard deviation (SD) values across all compounds, indicating minimal prediction error and variability. For PIO, XG Boost recorded an RMSEP of 0.100 and SD of 0.369, significantly better than PLS and ANN. For ALG, XG Boost showed near-perfect performance with an RMSEP of 0.001 and SD of 0.005, outperforming SVR and PLS, which had higher error rates. In the case of GLM, XG Boost also excelled with an RMSEP of 0.001 and SD of 0.018, demonstrating superior precision compared to the much higher errors seen in PLS and ANN. These results highlight XG Boost's exceptional ability to handle complex, overlapping spectral data, making it the most reliable and accurate model in this study.
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.