An Improved Comparison of Chemometric Analyses for the Identification of Acids and Bases With Colorimetric Sensor Arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorimetric sensor arrays incorporating red, green, and blue (RGB) image analysis use value changes from multiple sensors for the identification and quantification of various analytes. RGB data can be easily obtained using image analysis software such as ImageJ. Subsequent chemometric analysis is becoming a key component of colorimetric array RGB data analysis, though literature contains mainly principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA). Seeking to expand the chemometric methods toolkit for array analysis, we explored the performance of nine chemometric methods were compared for the task of classifying 631 solutions (0.1 to 3 M) of acetic acid, malonic acid, lysine, and ammonia using an eight sensor colorimetric array. PCA and LDA (linear discriminant analysis) were effective for visualizing the dataset. For classification, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), (k nearest neighbors) KNN, (soft independent modelling by class analogy) SIMCA, recursive partitioning and regression trees (RPART), and hit quality index (HQI) were very effective with each method classifying compounds with over 90% correct assignments. Support vector machines (SVM) and partial least squares - discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) struggled with ~85 and 39% correct assignments, respectively. Additional mathematical treatments of the data set, such as incrementally increasing the exponents, did not improve the performance of LDA and KNN. The literature precedence indicates that the most common methods for analyzing colorimetric arrays are PCA, LDA, HCA, and KNN. To our knowledge, this is the first report of comparing and contrasting several more diverse chemometric methods to analyze the same colorimetric array data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".