Author |
Message |
lee (doublel)
New member Username: doublel
Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2009
| Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 5:08 am: | |
Dear Jim, Thank you Jim. I have tried SNV. but the result was not better than MSC. It is strange. best wishes. lee |
Jim Burger (jburger)
New member Username: jburger
Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2010
| Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 3:37 am: | |
Dear Lee, You might also consider trying an SNV pretreatment for comparison. There are several papers now that suggest MSC and SNV can be very very similar, however you don't provide a target spectrum for SNV. Best wishes, Jim |
lee (doublel)
New member Username: doublel
Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2009
| Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 2:53 am: | |
Dear Jose, Thank you for your answer. When I used the MSC model created using calibration, the prediction was good. However, when I used the MSC model created with validation, the result was worse than that without pretreatment. Thank you very much. Best regards lee |
Jose Miguel Hernandez Hierro (jmhhierro)
Member Username: jmhhierro
Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2008
| Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 2:33 am: | |
Dear Lee, I think you should use the same model.Each spectrum has been shifted and scaled using for instance the mean spectrum.You should perform the same standarization in the validation process. Best Regards Jose |
lee (doublel)
New member Username: doublel
Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2009
| Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 1:39 am: | |
hello everyone, Recently I met a problem, when I did spectra transform with MSC using Unscrambler, the sofrware prompted me using a MSC model. My problem is which model should I select when I do validation, the one I used in calibration or created a new one? best regards lee |