Artificial neural networks (ANN) was evaluated and compared with Response Surface Model (RSM) results using growth response data for E.coli O157:H7 as affected by 5 variables: pH, sodium chloride, and nitrite concentrations, temperature, and aerobic/anaerobic conditions. The best ANN obtained, where the 2 kinetic parameters, growth rate and lag‐time, were estimated jointly, contained 17 parameters and displayed a slightly lower Standard Error of Prediction (% SEP) than those obtained with RSM. Mathematical lag‐time validation with additional data gave a lower %SEP for ANN (18%) than for RSM (27%), although growth‐rate values were the same (22%). ANN thus should provide the innovative possibility of obtaining a single predictive model for the estimation of several kinetic parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garcíaa‐Gimeno et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: