| Literature DB >> 28932243 |
Zhengyan Xia1, Chu Zhang1, Haiyong Weng1, Pengcheng Nie1,2, Yong He1.
Abstract
Hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technology has increasingly been applied as an analytical tool in fields of agricultural, food, and Traditional Chinese Medicine over the past few years. The HSI spectrum of a sample is typically achieved by a spectroradiometer at hundreds of wavelengths. In recent years, considerable effort has been made towards identifying wavelengths (variables) that contribute useful information. Wavelengths selection is a critical step in data analysis for Raman, NIRS, or HSI spectroscopy. In this study, the performances of 10 different wavelength selection methods for the discrimination of Ophiopogon japonicus of different origin were compared. The wavelength selection algorithms tested include successive projections algorithm (SPA), loading weights (LW), regression coefficients (RC), uninformative variable elimination (UVE), UVE-SPA, competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS), interval partial least squares regression (iPLS), backward iPLS (BiPLS), forward iPLS (FiPLS), and genetic algorithms (GA-PLS). One linear technique (partial least squares-discriminant analysis) was established for the evaluation of identification. And a nonlinear calibration model, support vector machine (SVM), was also provided for comparison. The results indicate that wavelengths selection methods are tools to identify more concise and effective spectral data and play important roles in the multivariate analysis, which can be used for subsequent modeling analysis.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28932243 PMCID: PMC5592010 DOI: 10.1155/2017/6018769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Figure 1The hyperspectral imaging system.
Figure 2Average raw spectra reflectance curves of Ophiopogon japonicus.
Class assignment and division of Ophiopogon japonicus samples.
| Zhemaidong | Chuanmaidong | |
|---|---|---|
| Label | 1 | 2 |
| Calibration set | 210 | 240 |
| Prediction set | 105 | 120 |
| Sum up | 315 | 360 |
Figure 3Seven wavelengths were selected by RC method.
Figure 4Plot of 291 selected wavelengths by UVE. Columns represent selected wavelengths.
Figure 5Plot of 12 selected wavelengths by UVE-SPA. Columns represent selected wavelengths.
Figure 6Minimum RMSECV of different number of intervals.
Figure 7RMSECV of 16 intervals.
Figure 813 intervals selected by BiPLS. Columns represent selected intervals.
Effective wavelengths selected by different methods.
| Methods | Number | Wavelengths/nm |
|---|---|---|
| SPA | 5 | 889, 1014, 411, 460, 407 |
| RC | 7 | 409, 448, 455, 491, 545, 959, 999 |
| LW | 8 | 550, 990, 433, 1014, 539, 385, 380, 382 |
| UVE | 291 | 408, 410, 417, 425, 428, 430, 432, 444~467, 477~479, 481~517, 519, 524~564, 574, 576~611, 626, 631~639, 642, 644, 650, 652, 659, 664, 667, 676~695, 697, 700, 703, 709, 711, 723, 740, 752, 759, 776, 786, 788~796, 799, 800, 810, 844, 849, 852, 853, 856, 857, 859~929, 934, 937, 940~981, 986, 990~1007, 1009, 1014 |
| UVE-SPA | 12 | 426, 455, 503, 545, 589, 786, 875, 970, 994, 998, 1007, 1014 |
| CARS | 105 | 418, 426, 431, 437, 443, 457, 466, 475~481, 489, 491~495, 497~500, 507, 511, 516, 519, 533, 535, 539, 540, 543~545, 548~551, 555, 558, 565~569, 571, 573, 576, 582, 584, 594~610, 613~618, 624, 637, 640, 643, 648, 653, 661, 668, 675, 681, 685, 687, 689, 719, 735, 738, 750, 751, 795, 806, 813, 816, 831, 856, 862, 874~877, 881, 888~889, 905, 910, 918, 920, 924, 961~964, 968, 973, 976, 987, 992~996, 1023 |
| iPLS | 32 | 942~982 |
| BiPLS | 208 | 418~436, 456~474, 494~513, 534~592, 614~653, 839~879, 963~1023 |
| FiPLS | 480 | 418~1023 |
| GA-PLS | 85 | 431, 466~469, 472, 473, 479~481, 490~494, 506~509, 512~522, 534~550, 551, 580~584, 685~689, 799~801, 875~877, 888, 956~963, 965~978, 983, 985, 990~1000 |
Results of PLS-DA models using different selected wavelengths.
| Methods | Variables | Calibration | Prediction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct number | Identification accuracy/% | Correct number | Identification accuracy/% |
| ||
| Raw | 512 | 449 | 99.8 | 214 | 95.1 | |
| SPA | 5 | 417 | 92.7 | 210 | 93.3 | −1.78 |
| RC | 7 | 413 | 91.8 | 211 | 93.8 | −1.28 |
| LW | 8 | 402 | 89.3 | 199 | 88.4 | −6.60 |
| UVE | 291 | 449 | 99.8 | 219 | 97.3 | 0.95 |
| UVE-SPA | 12 | 449 | 99.8 | 216 | 96.0 | 0.88 |
| CARS | 105 | 449 | 99.8 | 221 | 98.2 | 2.46 |
| iPLS | 32 | 430 | 95.6 | 199 | 88.4 | −6.28 |
| BiPLS | 208 | 450 | 100 | 223 | 99.1 | 2.38 |
| FiPLS | 480 | 449 | 99.8 | 219 | 97.3 | 0.14 |
| GA-PLS | 85 | 446 | 99.1 | 217 | 96.4 | 1.08 |
Results of SVM models using different wavelengths.
| Methods | Variables | Calibration | Prediction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct number | Identification accuracy/% | Correct number | Identification accuracy/% |
| ||
| Raw | 512 | 449 | 99.8 | 218 | 96.9 | |
| SPA | 5 | 431 | 95.8 | 208 | 92.4 | −4.46 |
| RC | 7 | 429 | 95.3 | 210 | 93.3 | −3.55 |
| LW | 8 | 415 | 92.2 | 205 | 91.1 | −5.71 |
| UVE | 291 | 448 | 99.6 | 219 | 97.3 | 0.17 |
| UVE-SPA | 12 | 448 | 99.6 | 217 | 96.4 | −0.49 |
| CARS | 105 | 444 | 98.7 | 217 | 96.4 | −0.40 |
| iPLS | 32 | 442 | 98.2 | 199 | 88.4 | −7.97 |
| BiPLS | 208 | 444 | 98.7 | 221 | 98.2 | 0.77 |
| FiPLS | 480 | 444 | 98.7 | 218 | 96.9 | 0 |
| GA-PLS | 85 | 448 | 99.6 | 223 | 99.1 | 1.83 |