Sum of ranking differences for method discrimination and its validation: Comparison of ranks with random numbers

Journal of Chemometrics

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 151-158

  Héberger, Károly ^a   Kollár Hunek, Klára ^b  

^a CHEMICAL RESEARCH CENTER   (Hungary)

^b BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Determination of principal components; Feature selection; Model and method comparison; Permutation test; Ranking

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENT; DIFFERENCE VALUES; FEATURES SELECTION; METHOD COMPARISON; MODELING RESULTS; MODELS COMPARISONS; PERMUTATION TESTS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS; RANDOM NUMBERS; RANKING;

NORMAL DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 79954501839     PISSN: 08869383     EISSN: 1099128X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cem.1320     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Héberger K. Sum of ranking differences compares methods or models fairly. Trend. Anal. Chem. 2010; 29: 101-109.
2. Geladi P, Swerts J, Lindgren F. Multiwavelength microscopic image-analysis of a piece of painted chinaware - classification and regression. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1994; 24: 145-167.
3. Geladi P. The regression model comparison plot (REMOCOP), Proc. Spectroscopy Across the Spectrum IV, Norwich, UK, 11-14 July 1994; In Frontiers in Analytical Spectroscopy, Andrews D, Davies A (eds). The Royal Society of Chemistry.
4. Todeschini R. Data correlation, number of significant principal components and shape of molecules. The K correlation index. Anal. Chim. Acta 1997; 348: 419-430.
5. Todeschini R, Ballabio D, Consonni V, Mauri A, Pavan M. CAIMAN (Classification And Influence Matrix Analysis): A new approach to the classification based on leverage-scaled functions. Chemometr. Int. Lab. Syst. 2007; 87: 3-17.
6. Stout F, Baines MR, Kalivas JH. Impartial graphical comparison of multivariate calibration methods and the harmony/parsimony tradeoff. J. Chemometr. 2006; 20: 464-475.
7. Farkas O, Héberger K. Comparison of ridge regression, partial least-squares, pairwise correlation, forward and best subset selection methods for prediction of retention indices for aliphatic alcohols. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005; 45: 339-346.
8. Farkas O, Zenkevich IG, Stout F, Kalivas JH, Héberger K. Prediction of retention indices for identification of fatty acid methyl esters. J. Chromatogr. A 2008; 1198-1199: 188-195.
9. Holliday JD, Salim N, Whittle M, Willett P. Analysis and display of the size dependence of chemical similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003; 43: 819-828.
10. Yin K, Choudhary PK, Varghese D, Goodman SR. A Bayesian approach for sample size determination in method comparison studies. Statist Med. 2007; DOI: 10.1002/sim.3124.
11. Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater. Des. 2009; 30: 4043-4053.
12. Hong Y, Kwong S, Chang Y, Ren Q. Unsupervised feature selection using clustering ensembles and population based incremental learning algorithm Pattern Recogn. 2008; 41: 2742-2756.
13. Huang JJ, Cai YZ, Xu XM. A parameterless feature ranking algorithm based on Mutual Information. Neurocomputing 2008; 71: 1656-1668.
14. Carbo S, Humphrey D, Maudos J, Molyneux P. Cross-country comparisons of competition and pricing power in European banking. J. Int. Money Financ. 2009; 28: 115-134.
15. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Smith JA, Luce R. Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: a comparison of download and citation data. Inf. Proc. Manag. 2005; 41: 1419-1440.
16. Jamal T, Smith B, Watson E, Ranking, rating and scoring of tourism journals: interdisciplinary challenges and innovations. Tourism Manag. 2008; 29: 66-78.
17. Voicu V, Sora I, Sarbu C, David V, Medvedovici A. Hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity descriptors obtained from extrapolated chromatographic retention data as modeling tools for biological distribution: application to some oxime-type acetylcholinesterase reactivators. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2010; 52: 508-516.
18. Conover WJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, (2nd edn). John Wiley & Sons: New York; 1980; 213-343.
19. Kraker JJ, Hawkins DM, Basak SC, Natarajan R, Mills D. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling of juvenile hormone activity: comparison of validation procedures. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2007; 87: 33-42.
20. Kollár-Hunek K, Heszberger J, Kókai Z, Láng-Lázi M, Papp E. Testing panel consistency with GCAP method in food profile analysis. J. Chemometr. 2008; 22: 218-226.
21. Wasim M, Brereton RG. Determination of the number of significant components in liquid chromatography nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2004; 72: 133-151.
22. Héberger K, Zenkevich IG. Comparison of physicochemical and chromatographic polarity measures for simple organic compounds. J. Chromatogr. A 2010; 1217: 2895-2902.