2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2005.08.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Negative impact of noise on the principal component analysis of NMR data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
68
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
68
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A principal disadvantage of data scaling is its tendency to amplify instrumental noise, to which PCA and PLS have been shown to be sensitive [52,83]. Methods of scaling based on Maximum Likelihood PCA (MLPCA) [84] have been used to estimate and remove instrumental errors prior to multivariate analysis [85].…”
Section: Noise and Baseline Removalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A principal disadvantage of data scaling is its tendency to amplify instrumental noise, to which PCA and PLS have been shown to be sensitive [52,83]. Methods of scaling based on Maximum Likelihood PCA (MLPCA) [84] have been used to estimate and remove instrumental errors prior to multivariate analysis [85].…”
Section: Noise and Baseline Removalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After Fourier transformation and phase correction, residual water, and buffer peaks were removed from the spectra, the entire one-dimensional 1 H NMR spectra were normalized using center averaging and binned using intelligent bucketing. Noise regions were eliminated and then the bins were scaled using center averaging prior to principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal projection to latent structures discriminate analysis (37).…”
Section: Determination Of Transcriptional Start Sites Of Nmmn_0640mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The exclusion of noisy dimensions can have a significant impact on the performance of PCA. [21] This weakness of PCA may be overcome by using other feature extraction methods. Sources of noise are the natural inter-and intra-subject gait variability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%