2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2021.131123
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cross-compensation of FET sensor drift and matrix effects in the industrial continuous monitoring of ion concentrations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared to using a single biomarker, using all biomarkers did not always give a lower MAE. This result is in line with the findings in literature that more sensor readings did not necessarily lead to better prediction accuracy [36]. Furthermore, no specific combination of biomarkers consistently gave the lowest MAE on all datasets.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Compared to using a single biomarker, using all biomarkers did not always give a lower MAE. This result is in line with the findings in literature that more sensor readings did not necessarily lead to better prediction accuracy [36]. Furthermore, no specific combination of biomarkers consistently gave the lowest MAE on all datasets.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…We found that hydration complicated the relationship between biomarkers and %BWL. An extended study in the future with multiple subjects and intensity variations, especially with data collected from wearable devices, will allow further investigation of machine learning models including state-of-the-art deep learning models [36], [41], to provide continuous monitoring of the hydration status of athletes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Later, it stabilized and then it decreased again. However, the variation of the intercept estimated considering the 15 consecutive calibrations was 35.8 ± 9.2 mV on average, which is in accordance with the sensor temporal drift [36].…”
Section: Sensor Batch Characterizationsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…They therefore give reason to hope that the open question may be addressed by numerically-based methods. Among the most widespread ML methods in sensor calibration are artificial neural networks (ANNs) in the form of multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) [66]- [68], convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [69], [70], and fuzzy neural networks (FNNs) [71]. Other approaches have relied on random forests (RFs) [67], [72], [73], Gaussian process regression (GPR) [73]- [75], and Bayesian neural networks [76].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other approaches have relied on random forests (RFs) [67], [72], [73], Gaussian process regression (GPR) [73]- [75], and Bayesian neural networks [76]. These methods have been applied for temperature compensation [66], [67], temporal drift compensation of field effect transistor sensors [70], and for compensating commercial water quality sensors in order to extend the calibration lifetime [69]. ANNs are much appreciated for their effectiveness in classification tasks [77]- [79].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%