Precision of prediction in second‐order calibration, with focus on bilinear regression methods

Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2002 papers

Abstract

Abstract We consider calibration of hyphenated instruments with particular focus on determination of the unknown concentrations of new specimens. A hyphenated instrument generates for each specimen a two‐way array of data. These are assumed to depend on the concentrations through a bilinear regression model, where each constituent is characterized by a pair of profiles to be determined in the calibration. We discuss the problem of predicting the unknown concentrations in a new specimen, after calibration. We formulate three different predictor construction methods, a ‘naive’ method, a least squares method, and a refined version of the latter that takes account of the calibration uncertainty. We give formulae for the uncertainty of the predictors under white noise, when calibration can be seen as precise. We refine these formulae to allow for calibration uncertainty, in particular when calibration is carried out by the bilinear least squares (BLLS) method or the singular value decomposition (SVD) method proposed by Linder and Sundberg ( Chemometrics Intell. Lab. Syst . 1998; 42 : 159–178). By error propagation formulae and previous results on the precision of $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ we can obtain approximate standard errors for the predicted concentrations, according to each of the two estimation methods. The performance of the predictors and the precision formulae is illustrated on both real (fluorescence) and simulated data. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Related Papers

• → “Click and Screen” Technology for the Detection of Explosives on Human Hands by a Portable MicroNIR–Chemometrics Platform(2018)58 cited
• → Application of Chemometrics in Separation Science(2006)46 cited
• → Advanced Bilinear Image Interpolation Based on Edge Features(2009)29 cited
• → The chemometrics revolution re‐examined(2017)13 cited
• The State of Chemometrics(2002)