Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 905

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 158 of the 158 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A tutorial review: Metabolomics and partial least squares-discriminant analysis – a marriage of convenience or a shotgun wedding

Open access
Gromski, Piotr S., Muhamadali, Howbeer, Ellis, David I., Xu, Yun, Correa, Elon, Turner, Michael L., Goodacre, Royston·2015·Analytica Chimica Acta

Abstract

The predominance of partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) used to analyze metabolomics datasets (indeed, it is the most well-known tool to perform classification and regression in metabolomics), can be said to have led to the point that not all researchers are fully aware of alternative multivariate classification algorithms. This may in part be due to the widespread availability of PLS-DA in most of the well-known statistical software packages, where its implementation is very easy if the default settings are used. In addition, one of the perceived advantages of PLS-DA is that it has the ability to analyze highly collinear and noisy data. Furthermore, the calibration model is known to provide a variety of useful statistics, such as prediction accuracy as well as scores and loadings plots. However, this method may provide misleading results, largely due to a lack of suitable statistical validation, when used by non-experts who are not aware of its potential limitations when used in conjunction with metabolomics. This tutorial review aims to provide an introductory overview to several straightforward statistical methods such as principal component-discriminant function analysis (PC-DFA), support vector machines (SVM) and random forests (RF), which could very easily be used either to augment PLS or as alternative supervised learning methods to PLS-DA. These methods can be said to be particularly appropriate for the analysis of large, highly-complex data sets which are common output(s) in metabolomics studies where the numbers of variables often far exceed the number of samples. In addition, these alternative techniques may be useful tools for generating parsimonious models through feature selection and data reduction, as well as providing more propitious results. We sincerely hope that the general reader is left with little doubt that there are several promising and readily available alternatives to PLS-DA, to analyze large and highly complex data sets.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aca.2015.02.012

Cites

158 of 158 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 158 references

Cited by

See all 905

Metadata

Authors
Gromski, P. S., Muhamadali, H., Ellis, D. I., Xu, Y., Correa, E., Turner, M. L., & Goodacre, R.
Venue
Analytica Chimica Acta
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
879
Pages
10-23
ISSN
0003-2670 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089181989
Cited by
905
References
158
FWCI
26.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A tutorial review: Metabolomics and partial least squares-discriminant analysis – a marriage of convenience or a shotgun wedding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.aca.2015.02.012
The paper
Gromski, P. S., Muhamadali, H., Ellis, D. I., Xu, Y., Correa, E., Turner, M. L., & Goodacre, R. (2015). A tutorial review: Metabolomics and partial least squares-discriminant analysis – a marriage of convenience or a shotgun wedding. Analytica Chimica Acta. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2015.02.012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.