Cited by 48Electrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses

Failure of standard training sets in the analysis of fast-scan cyclic voltammetry data

Open access
Johnson, Justin A., Rodeberg, Nathan T., Wightman, R. Mark·2016·ACS Chemical Neuroscience

Abstract

The use of principal component regression, a multivariate calibration method, in the analysis of in vivo fast-scan cyclic voltammetry data allows for separation of overlapping signal contributions, permitting evaluation of the temporal dynamics of multiple neurotransmitters simultaneously. To accomplish this, the technique relies on information about current-concentration relationships across the scan-potential window gained from analysis of training sets. The ability of the constructed models to resolve analytes depends critically on the quality of these data. Recently, the use of standard training sets obtained under conditions other than those of the experimental data collection (e.g., with different electrodes, animals, or equipment) has been reported. This study evaluates the analyte resolution capabilities of models constructed using this approach from both a theoretical and experimental viewpoint. A detailed discussion of the theory of principal component regression is provided to inform this discussion. The findings demonstrate that the use of standard training sets leads to misassignment of the current-concentration relationships across the scan-potential window. This directly results in poor analyte resolution and, consequently, inaccurate quantitation, which may lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn from experimental data. Thus, it is strongly advocated that training sets be obtained under the experimental conditions to allow for accurate data analysis.

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 · 10.1021/acschemneuro.5b00302

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Shallow neural networks can achieve better error rates than deep neural networks for text classification in some situations, with deep neural networks outperforming shallower models when the dataset was 2.6 million documents but performing poorly when training data was 120 K documents.

    “A study shows that shallow neural networks can achieve better error rates than deep neural networks for text classification in some situations, with deep neural networks outperforming shallower models when the dataset was 2.6 million documents but performing poorly when training data was 120 K documents (Johnson et al., 2016).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Keithley RB Heien ML Wightman RM 2009 Multivariate concentration determination using principal component regression with residual analysis TrAC, Trends Anal Chem 28 1127 1136 PMC2760950 20160977

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, J. A., Rodeberg, N. T., & Wightman, R. M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Wightman, R. Mark
Venue
ACS Chemical Neuroscience
Published
2016-01-27
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
349-359
ISSN
1948-7193 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2239735445
Cited by
48
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Chemical Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA010900)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Electrochemistry › Electrochemical Analysis and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Spectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Keywords
fast-scan cyclic voltammetry, principal component regression, multivariate calibration, training data, model transferability
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Chemistry, Calibration, Dopamine, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Principal Component Analysis, Electrochemical Techniques

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